■ i'i (';i.t'i'i:i'('!!; ■ 







Glass _/L^L*c 
Book XZ_^ 



.7 : / 



WITHDRAWAL OF WATER-POWER SITES AND CONSTRUCTION OF 
WATER-POWER PLANTS FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY 

UNITED STATES SENATE r/ 

- 
SIXTY-FOURTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

S. 4971 

A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE DESIGNATION AND WITHDRAWAL 

OF WATER-POWER SITES AND THE CONSTRUCTION 

OF WATER-POWER AND OTHER PLANTS FOR 

THE MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES 



Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry 




WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1910 



«tf 






\ 



<\\ 



COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY. 

THOMAS P. GORE, Oklahoma, Chairman. 
GEORGE E. CHAMBERLAIN, Oregon. FRANCIS E. WARREN, Wyoming. 

ELLISON D. SMITH, South Carolina. CARROLL S. PAGE, Vermont. 

HOKE SMITH, Georgia. ASLE J. GRONNA, North Dakota. 

MORRIS SHEPPARD, Texas. JAMES H. BRADY, Idaho. 

JOHN F. SHAFROTH, Colorado. GEORGE W. NORRIS, Nebraska. 

JOSEPH E. RANSDELL, Louisiana. WILLIAM S. KENYON, Iowa. 

WILLIAM H. THOMPSON, Kansas. JAMES W. WADSWORTH, Jr., New York. 

EDWIN S. JOHNSON, South Dakota. 

J. Hoy Thompson, Cleric. 



D. of D. 
MAY 2 1916 




WITHDRAWAL OF WATER-POWER SITES AND CONSTRUCTION OF 
WATER-POWER PLANTS FOR MANUFACTURE OK NITRATES. 



THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 1916. 



United States Senate, 
Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, 

Washington, D. G. 

The committee met at 11.15 o'clock a. am. pursuant to call, Senator 
Thomas P. Gore (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Gore (chairman), Page, Smith of South Caro- 
lina, Smith of Georgia, Gronna, Shafroth, Norris, Kenyon, Thomp- 
son, Wadsworth, and Johnson of South Dakota. 

Present also: Mr. Frank S. Washburn, president the American 
Cyanamid Co., and Mr. George M. Schurman, 200 Fifth Avenue, 
New York City. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, the committee has before it this morn- 
ing Senate bill 4971, introduced by Senator Smith of South Carolina, 
to authorize the designation and withdrawal of water-power sites 
and the construction of water-power and other plants by the United 
States for the manufacture of nitrates, and for other purposes. The 
clerk will insert the bill referred to in full in the record. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the President at any time, in 
his discretion, may, by Executive order, designate for the exclusive use of the 
United States any site upon a navigable river, the improvement of which for 
purposes of navigation will make available at such site surplus water power 
over and above the needs for navigation. After being so designated, and until 
the designation is modified or revoked, every such site shall be developed and 
improved only in the manner and for the purposes authorized by this act. 

Sec. 2. That the President may also at any time, in his discretion, withdraw 
from settlement, location, sale, or entry and reserve for the exclusive use of 
the United States any public lands of the United States, including the Terri- 
tory of Alaska, whether within national forests or other reservations or with- 
drawals, which are valuable as water-power sites for the purpose of this act or 
which contain limestone, phosphate, coal, or other minerals or materials needed 
for the production of nitrates or other products as contemplated in this act. 

Sec. 3. That the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized and directed to 
investigate and to recommend for designation or withdrawal such dam sites, 
water-power sites, and mineral or other lands as in his opinion will be neces- 
sary for carrying out the purpose of this act, and is further authorized to con- 
struct, maintain, and operate at or on any site so designated or withdrawn, 
dams, locks, other improvements to navigation, power houses, and other plants 
and equipment necessary or convenient for the generation of electrical or 
other power for the production of nitrates or other products useful in the manu- 
facture of fertilizers and munitions of war: Provided, That all plans and 
specifications for dams in navigable rivers shall be submitted to and approved 
bv the Secretary of War. 

3 



4 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

Sec. 4. Thai the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to lease, purchase, 
or acquire, by condemnation, gift, <>r devise, such land and rights of way as 
may be necessary for the construction and operation of such plants and to 
take from any lands of the United States, or to purchase or acquire by con- 
demnation, materials and minerals necessary for the construction or operation 
of such plants and for the manufacture of such products. 

Sec. 5. That the products of such plants shall be subject to requisition by 
the Secretary of War or the Secretary of the Navy for military or naval pur- 
poses, and any surplus not so requisitioned may be sold and disposed of by 
the Secretary of Agriculture under such regulations as he may prescribe. 

Sec. 6. That the sum of .$15,000,000 is hereby appropriated, out of any 
moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, available until expended, 
to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out the purposes of this act. 

The Chairman. The committee will first hear from Mr. Washburn. 

STATEMENT OF MR. FRANK S. WASHBURN, PRESIDENT THE 
AMERICAN CYANAMID CO. OF NEW YORK CITY. (RESIDENCE, 
NASHVILLE, TENN.) 

The Chairman. Please state you name and place of residence. 

Mr. Washburn. My residence is Nashville, Tenn., and my name 
Frank S. Washburn. 

The Chairman. What is your occupation? 

Mr. Washburn. I am an engineer, and my principal interest at 
this time is in the fixation of atmospheric nitrogen. 

The Chairman. How long have you been an engineer? 

Mr. Washburn. Oh, about 30 years. 

The Chairman. How long have you been giving special attention 
to the subject of the fixation of nitrogen? 

Mr. Washburn. Ten years. 

The Chairman. Now, you may go ahead in your own way and 
make statements, and the members of the committee will ask any 
questions which may occur to them. 

Mr. Washburn. When it was intimated that I might be able to 
give this committee some information which they did not possess 
upon the nitrogen problem, I had in mind possibly that the com- 
mittee might not appreciate fully the importance of the nitrogen 
problem and its significance to the United States. Since entering 
the room and hearing your discussions I have reached the conclusion 
that the committee appreciates the importance of the problem and 
desires to approach it in an intelligent way, but is somewhat non- 
plussed to know what the status of the nitrogen industry is. 

I think, first, I will lend myself to clearing up the minds of the 
committee as to what the nitrogen industry is, what it has accom- 
plished, and those principal factors that to the informed, scientific 
world are developed and passed in the nitrogen industry. 

First of all, it is well to bear in mind that an industry is not a 
discovery; it is not a thing that one discovers and immediately puts 
into use. One can make a mechanical invention, secure a patent on 
it, turn it over to a draftsman, develop it in the shop, and have it 
in use in a month possibty. But the nitrogen industry has been 16 
years in its development. There was a long period of research work, 
involving an expenditure of about $1,000,000 before there was the 
least glimmer of commercial practicability. 

It was a chemical and bacteriological problem, because the chief 
use of nitrogen is as a plant food, and an acceptable plant food is 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 5 

a question of bacteriology, so that the early investigators, not em- 
ployed for the purpose of developing any one man's idea, but for the 
purpose of covering the whole field, had to determine not only what 
would be feasible from the chemical and electrical standpoint but 
whether it would be acceptable as a plant food after they had de- 
veloped the material. 

In the carrying out of such a major process, there are literally 
scores of subsidiary processes, and while the principle by which the 
nitrogen of the air is fixed or made available is simple, carrying the 
principle into effect involves many processes. 

To-day it is a practical, completed, well-understood, and highly 
efficient accomplishment. There is in use in this single industry 
to-day, which to Americans is almost unknown and carries a weird 
name, 1,000,000 horsepower, continuous, every second of the year, 
all going into the fixing of atmospheric nitrogen. 

We have in the world one great center of power, Niagara Falls, 
greater than any other center of power that exists. If we could 
put to-day right along side of the present Niagara Falls a complete 
duplicate, those two Niagara Falls together would not develop 
enough power to equal the amount of power that is engaged at this 
verv moment in the manufacture of atmospheric nitrogen. 

The Chairman. Can you give us the distribution of this power as 
to countries? 

Mr. Washburn. Roughly. There is in Canada about 30.000; in 
Germany, about 350.000 horsepower; in Norway, about 450,000; in 
Dalmatia, Italv, Switzerland, Japan, and France, I should think, 
100,000 or 150,000, making approximately 980.000 horsepower. 

Senator Norris. How much in the United States, did you say? 

Mr. Washburn. None in the United States. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. If you will allow me, is this 
table about correct as to the total of fixed nitrogen ? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes; that is correct for the cyanamid process, 
but that is just for one process. There are two processes; that is 
correct for the cyanamid process. 

What has been obtained, economically speaking, is this : That the 
factory cost, under most favorable conditions, those which are not 
only theoretically obtainable, but actually obtainable in some parts 
of the world, everything, including overhead and superintendence 
and all that sort of thing inside the factory, but not including in- 
terest on the investment, for producing nitrogen, comparable to the 
nitrogen that is in the Chilean nitrate, is about one-third of the 
ordinary market price of the Chilean nitrate. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. You mean to say that the 
factory cost is about a third of the selling cost ? 

Mr. Washburn. Of the selling cost of Chilean nitrate. 

The Chairman. Suppose you put that in figures, giving the price 
in ordinary times. 

Mr. Washburn. I am talking of Chilean nitrate at the rather 
low figure of $2.40 to $2.60 per unit of ammonia, which is the unit 
that is employed universally in agriculture, equal to 20 pounds of 
ammonia; and the cost in a well-placed, well-conducted cyanamid 
factory is 80 to 90 cents a unit. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Expressed in tons, it would be 
about $50 a ton for the Chilean nitrate ? 



6 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

Mr. Washburn. About $50 a ton, and for a ton of cyanamid ma- 
terial having the same amount of nitrogen it would be about one- 
third of $50, or, say, $17. 

That is the result, one might say, broadly speaking, of 16 years of 
development. 

Now, a word as to the course that this development is taking, be- 
cause understanding the history of the development enables one to 
exercise his judgment as to what may be offered in the matter of 
future processes for future development. 

So far as the cyanamid process is concerned — and its general 
history has been followed by the so-called arc process, or Birkeland- 
Eyde process — it began with a realization on the part of one of the 
great German interests (the most important of all the electrical 
interests in the world, employers of about 110,000 workmen in their 
factories) as early as 1900, that unless the world could have a new 
source of nitrogen, it could not keep pace with the growing food 
demands of the civilized world; so a separate company was organ- 
ized and about $1,000,000 appropriated to conduct research work. 

The Chairman. By the Government? 

Mr. Washburn. No ; by this single interest in Germany. They 
employed the finest staff of experts or scientific men that could be 
found, and they investigated every form and kind of fixation of 
atmospheric nitrogen that had ever been referred to or imagined, or 
that they themselves could develop, and they finally settled upon 
what is known as the "cyanamid process." Before making it known 
to the world they established at a cheap water-power in Italy a plant 
large enough to turn out material in a commercial form, and that 
was as early as 1906. That plant had a capacity of 4.000 tons of 
cyanamid, which is equivalent to about 5.000 tons of Chilean nitrate 
of soda. 

The Chairman. Per day or what? 

Mr. Washburn. Per year. And that was operated for a year or 
two to develop the commercial possibilities and refine the processes 
into commercial practicability before the process was made known 
to the world and before its owners disposed of any rights under it. 

Thev found that the thing approached commercial feasibilitv in 
1906-7. 

The American history of the cyanamid process is that I went 
abroad about that time, in 1907, for the purpose of securing rights to 
what is known as the " Norwegian process," the arc process. 

The Chairman. What process? 

Mr. Washburn. A-r-c, another method of fixing atmospheric 
nitrogen, that proved, in a number of conferences and consultations 
with those who had developed and owned the arc process to be im- 
practicable of application in the United States. We all understand 
that. The arc people understand it; it is just as well known among 
the informed as any professional subject is known in law or medi- 
cine. I then negotiated for the cyanamid process and brought it 
over here in 1907. A number of us put up $1,000,000 to conduct a 
commercial experiment. A small factory was built, and the process 
in the matter of the cost of production very much improved. The 
original guaranties as to cost we have almost cut in half by the de- 
velopments of the America manufacturing staff and the research 
department of our company. 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

The Chairman. What is the style of your company? 

Mr. Washburn. The American Cyanamid Co. 

Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Where is your factory? 

Mr. Washburn. The factory was established on the Canadian 
side of Niagara Falls. The company now has a production of two 
and a half million dollars' worth of product per annum. The mate- 
rial is used almost exclusively as one of the ingredients of the so- 
called " mixed fertilizer " used in the United States. 

Senator Kenyon. Are you an officer of that company? 

Mr. Washburn. I am president of the company. 

Naturally, it has been necessary to conduct everything we have 
done with the utmost secrecy. As has been said, enough years have 
already transpired since the beginning to have outworn the patent 
period; and in order to enjoy a return upon the millions that are 
involved in the development of such an industry as this, things 
which the American investor and American people are wholly un- 
familiar with, but which are practiced in Germany and France 
chiefly, one must be able to enjoy his patents through the natural 
period of their life. If patents are taken out on the day of the 
inception of the idea they become public and expire too early, and 
therefore it is universal in the history of the chemical industry that 
such matters are conducted in secrecy; in fact, there are special laws 
in Germany which safeguard that sort of property there, laws of 
which we do not have a counterpart in this country. For that rea- 
son as a people we are very much uninformed as to the present 
status and development of the nitrogen industry. 

We have just had an example of the degree of perfection to which 
the industry has been brought in what has happened to Germany 
and in what the allied Governments are doing. When the European 
war broke out Germany had in store 060,000 tons of nitrate of soda, 
valued at something over $30,000,000. All powder, all military ex- 
plosives, are based upon the use of nitric acid, and except by the 
winning of nitric acid from the atmosphere there is no other source 
of nitric acid except the Chilean nitrate, " Chilean saltpeter," as it 
is generally known. Germany, of course, was at once cut off from 
Chile. She had a supply of saltpeter sufficient to last her for a 
short period, a few months. Her powder bill grew rapidly, until 
six months ago Germany's powder cost was at the rate of $1,000,000 
a day, average. She attained to that by the development — the sud- 
den and quick development — of every form of securing nitrogen that 
was possible of development, but chiefly through the cyanamid 
process. She at once put into the cyanamid process alone 300,000 
additional continuous horsepower. That is two-thirds as much as 
is being developed at Niagara Falls. 

Senator Kenyon. Has Germany developed her method of making 
nitrogen ? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes. 

Senator Kenyon. Has the method been published? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes; knowledge of the whole process, so far as 
the fundamental principles are concerned, is public property through 
the publications of the various patent offices of various countries. 

Germany has expended about $100,000,000 since the war broke 
out in the development of the nitrogen industry, all by the fixation 



8 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

of atmospheric nitrogen. That was, as we feel, chiefly because she 
could not get Chilean nitrates. But the allies have in use in fixing 
atmospheric nitrogen for themselves pretty nearly half of the total 
amount of power in use in the world for this purpose, and they are 
now erecting all over Europe nitric acid plants to manufacture from 
cyanamid nitric acid, which is an absolute necessity for explosives. 

So the point I wish to make is this, that the nitrogen industry is 
no longer in the experimental stage ; it is not representative of any- 
thing that we can put into the laboratory in charge of an uninformed 
man, individually or together 'with associates, and have a practical 
process flower from it. It has taken the greatest scientists in the 
world, men understanding such things, 16 years to bring it to where 
it is a great, successful, reliable, extraordinarily cheap method of 
producing the most valuable single substance known to mankind. 

For a moment, what is the importance of nitrogen? Its chief 
importance is found in two great human requirements — food and the 
means of national defense in times of war. 

The Chairman. Preserving life and producing death? 

Mr. Washburn. Preserving life and defending life. 

The Chairman. Producing death? 

Mr. Washburn. And the story of increased cost of foodstuffs and 
the relative records of the United States, we will say, and of Ger- 
many and others, in holding down the cost of foodstuffs and the 
general cost of living turn largely on the nitrogen fertilizer, for 
while we have advanced in this country about 80 per cent in our cost 
of foodstuffs Germany has advanced not much more than half that 
amount. The difference is chiefly because of the use of cheap fer- 
tilizers in Europe and the relative nonuse of fertilizers in the 
United States. It is not all involved, however, in the use of nitro- 
gen fertilizer alone, because there are two principal plant foods and 
three that are in use, the two principal ones being nitrogen and 
phosphoric acid, and the third one, which constitutes only about 20 
per cent of our" fertilizers in this country, being potash. But it so 
happens that the nitrogen and phosphoric acid factors are locked 
together, and for any great economic advance of agriculture in the 
use of fertilizers in this country we must depend upon those two 
materials going forward together, and going forward together de- 
pends entirely upon the production of a large quantity of cheap 
nitrogen. 

The fertilizer industry in this country, notwithstanding that our 
farmers pay twice as much for their fertilizers per pound of plant 
food as the German farmer, the use of fertilizer is per average cul- 
tivated acre only one-seventh of Germany's use. Germany's culti- 
vated area — I might have taken France as an example, but the Ger- 
man records are a little clearer than those of France — is about 
80.000,000 acres; the cultivated area in this country is about 32,- 
000,000 acres — she has about a quarter of what we have, but she 
uses one and a half to twice as much fertilizer as we do. She pro- 
duces, generally speaking, twice as much crop return per acre as the 
United States. And on that small area compared with the United 
States — the total area of Germany and England, you know, is only 
equivalent to Texas, with a population of 70 per cent of the popu- 
lation of the United States — she grows 95 per cent of her consump- 
tion of foodstuffs. 



WATEK POWEE FOB MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 9 

Senator Page. Is it not true that this great improvement in Ger- 
many has all taken place in the last 30 j-ears, or nearly all of it? 

Mr. Washburn. Germany was at first behind our own records, so 
far as the growing of crops was concerned, and Germany has gained 
what she has through three factors — intensive farming, the better 
selection of seeds, and through the use of artificial fertilizer, but 
to the latter should be ascribed not less than 50 per cent, and the 
French savants credit fertilizer with 75 per cent of that accom- 
plishment. 

Senator Gronna. Might you not add to that a high protective 
tariff also? 

Mr. Washburn. You mean in this country? 

Senator Gronna. No; I mean in Germany. 

Mr. Washburn. That is a subject I am not competent to discuss. 

Senator Gronna. We will not discuss it. 

Senator Page. We do not protect the fertilizers in this country. 

Mr. Washburn. All fertilizers are free of duty. 

Senator Gronna. I am speaking of the price of the grain, the 
product. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. You turned to me a moment 
ago when you said about "32,000,000 acres in cultivation in this 
country." I think it is approximately 60,000,000. 

Mr. Washburn. Cultivated acres? 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. I think so. 

The Chairman. There are 30,000,000 acres in wheat alone, and 
100,000,000 in corn. 

Mr. Washburn. I think if we take the acres that are cultivated 
and not the acre that is lying idle 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. There are 32,000,000 actually 
cultivated in cotton alone. 

Mr. Washburn. Which makes the disproportion all the greater. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Your German figures you are confident 
are right— 8,000,000 acres? 

Mr. Washburn. That comes from the German statistics. 

Senator Thompson. We certainly have more than 32,000,000 acres 
in cultivation in this country. 

Senator Gronna. In speaidng of the cost of the products in Ger- 
many, to the effect that they are cheaper, would you include meats as 
well as grain? You know, of course, meats are much higher in 
Germany than they are here. 

Mr. Washburn. I spoke of the cost of foodstuffs advancing in 
Germany about 50 or 55 per cent, while they advanced here about 
80, and the general cost of living advanced in Europe about 40 per 
cent, while it advanced 60 per cent in the United States. That cov- 
ered a period, as I recall it, of about 16 years. 

Senator Gronna. I was interested in knowing if that would apply 
to the price of meats or to the price of grain alone. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. I do not understand that you have said 
that the prices are cheaper there now than here? 

Mr. Washburn. No. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. You have only said that the relative 
advance in cost was greater here than there? ' 

Mr. Washburn. Yes. 



10 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. You attribute the lessened advance in 
cost there, to a considerable extent, to the development of commercial 
fertilizer. 

Mr. Washburn. Yes; and that is reasonable and is borne out in 
light of the fact that the German acreage production of crops is 
about twice what our acreage production is, and is borne out, further- 
more, by German}''s increase in crop production. For instance, I 
think it was in the period of 20 years that Germany increased her 
average yield of wheat 10 bushels an acre and we increased our aver- 
age yield 2 bushels. In that period, too, we had virgin lands, and 
notwithstanding our leaving old lands and going onto virgin lands 
to make up for the decreased fertility of worn-out lands, Germany 
made an advance in that period in her increment of five times what 
we did, and so pretty generally through the various crops. Germany, 
while we were increasing our yield 1 bushel per acre, increased her 
yield about 5 bushels per acre, in that ratio. 

Senator Page. I can give you in a moment the exact increase in the 
last 20 years. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Really, that is not the most pertinent 
thing. We accept the proposition that it is most important. 

Senator Page. Do you understand it is a more important thing in 
Germany than potash? I had supposed that potash was responsible 
for the immense 

Senator Smith of Georgia. I said " most important,'' not " the 
most important." 

Senator Norris. You said you went to Norway to investigate their 
methods of producing nitrogen from the air, and I understood you 
to say that you found that to be not practical for our uses here. Is 
that right ? 

Mr. Washburn. That is right. 

Senator Norris. So the method you have adopted in Canada is the 
one pursued in Germany? 

Mr. Washburn. The one pursued in Germany. 

Senator Norris. What is the reason the method they pursue in 
Norway is not practicable here? And if you can, I wish you would 
tell us the difference in the two processes. 

Mr. Washburn. I shall be very glad to. There are two processes 
-in use in Norway. They are, first, the so-called arc process, with 
which we associate the name of the Birkeland-Eyde Co., and I heard 
Mr. Eyde's name mentioned in the committee before I appeared be- 
fore you. Now, to show how little information the world at large 
possesses on this subject, the entire production of the Berkeland-Eyde 
process in nitrogen at this moment, with its great increase due to the 
demand of the English and French upon them for their product, is 
about double our production at Niagara Falls with our single plant. 
The cyanamid world production is many times what the arc produc- 
tion is, measured in the quantity of nitrogen produced. 

The Chairman. What is the relative cost? 

Mr. Washburn. In nitrogen, in the form of fertilizer, it costs 
about 50 per cent more to produce it by the arc process than it does 
by the cyanamid process. 

Senator Norris. Is that the reason it is not practicable here ? 

Mr. Washburn. No. The answer is in the characteristic differ- 
ences of the two processes. 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 11 

The arc process requires five or six times as much power per unit 
of nitrogen produced as the cyanamid process. The requirements in 
nitric acid of our Army in the event of war are estimated to be 
180,000 tons per annum — that is, of concentrated nitric acid. By 
the cyanamid process that would require 100.000 continuous horse- 
power ; by the arc process it would require 540,000 continuous horse- 
power. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. To produce 180,000 tons of 
concentrated nitric acid it would require what — what horsepower? 

Mr. Washburn. One hundred thousand horsepower by the cyana- 
mid process and 510,000 horsepower by the arc process. 

Senator Norris. One of these processes is just really an improve- 
ment, is it not? 

Mr. Washburn. They proceed along totally different lines. 

Senator Norris. They do? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Mr. Washburn, before you 
leave that part, what is the minimum horsepower that could be 
utilized economically in the production of nitrogen by the cyanamid 
process ? 

Mr. Washburn. A plant employing 30,000 horsepower is an eco- 
nomical plant to conduct. 

The Chairman. What is the minimum under the arc system? 

Mr. Washburn. I should think 150,000, maybe. 

Senator Gronna. Is the arc process the only one used in the 
Scandanavian countries? 

Mr. Washburn. No ; for there is more produced by the cyanamid 
process than by the arc process. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. You have given consideration to the 
number of power sites in the United States that have more than 
100,000 horsepower? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. What number are there? 

Mr. Washburn. Of those power sites in the United States which, 
all things considered, are physically feasible for the development 
of 100,000 horsepower and over, for a nitrogen process, I do not 
know of any that are commercially feasible. Our own plans have 
been to develop in Canada where power is cheap. The powers of 
the United States are expensive to develop. I know of a poAver in 
Norway that cost only $25 a horsepower for all the hydraulic and 
electrical equipment necessary to enable an electric horsepower to be 
developed and delivered on the switchboard. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. That includes the primary, as 
well as all the subsidiary powers developed? 

Mr. Washburn. That figure applies to a particular power that 
was very cheap. 

Generally speaking, Norway powers may be developed at $40 to 
$50. In the United States when we find $100 power it is cheap, and 
we run from that readily to $175. There is a good deal of discussion 
among engineers as to the American average. I have heard one of 
the most experienced engineers in the country fix the figure of $175 
as our average. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. What power sites of 30,000 and more 
have you within your knowledge ? 



12 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

Mr. Washburn. If it were purely a question of power, and there 
was not involved in the problem the necessity of having that power 
close to the raw materials, and close to market 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Suitable for use for this process? 

Mr. Washburn. Suitable for use. 

Senator Norris. The raw material in the nitrogen is the air? 

Mr. Washburn. That is one of the raw materials, but there is also 
required a very large quantity of limestone and a moderate quantity 
of coal. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. The limestone is the carrying 
agent which holds nitrogen in available form? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes. 

As to 30,000-horsepower sites, Senator Smith, I do not know one 
that is to be considered commercially feasible. I will tell you our 
story 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. You mean you do not know of 
one in the United States that is commercially feasible? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes; and we get pretty good evidence of that in 
our plans for future development outside of the United States. The 
Birkeland & Edye people had an engineer in this country for three 
years who did practically nothing but search for water powers, and 
they never found any suitable. 

Senator Page. What do you mean by " suitable " ? Why can we 
not appropriate any water power of 30,000 horsepower unit profit- 
ably? 

Mr. Washburn. Because the cost of development would bring 
the cost of the resulting product to a point where it would not be 
competitive with the product that can be produced in other countries 
and imported into the United States. 

Senator Page. And is probably true that the demand for horse- 
power in the United States for other purposes brings the price so 
far above the cost of other countries that we could not afford to 
utilize it for nitrogen if we wished to? 

Mr. Washburn. That is a factor, and is a factor in a number of 
situations; but chiefly our trouble in the United States is that those 
water powers which are favorably disposed in a matter of trans- 
portation of so gross a product as fertilizers are very expensive of 
development. 

Let us look at this question of the cost of water power for a 
moment. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Before you leave the cost — the 
Interior Department and Agriculture Department, principally the 
Agriculture Department — have indicated to me through my investi- 
gation, and in cooperation in the preparation of this bill, that we 
have in this country, under proper legislation, available water power 
for the development of atmospheric nitrogen plants. 

Mr. Washburn. There are remote powers. There is a power in 
the northeastern corner of the State of Washington ; there are some 
powers in the Sierras; there is a power in eastern Tennessee that 
can be developed so that power will be reasonably cheap ; but the 
situations are impracticable — in some cases due to the necessity of 
particularly long and expensive transportation to the market and 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 13 

on the raw materials, and because of the general absence of raw 
materials and a labor market. 

Senator Kenyon. You pay a royalty in Canada per horsepower 
per annum to the Government? 

Mr. Washburn. No. We purchase our power from the Ontario 
Power Co., which is one of the large power development companies 
in Canada. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. You realize we do not meet our necessi- 
ties at all so far as military preparedness is concerned by developing 
the power in Canada ? 

Mr. Washburn. I realize that. May I just for a moment develop 
this matter of power and give you the conclusion we have reached 
as to the practical method for the United States not only to have 
military preparedness, so far as insuring its powder supply is con- 
cerned, but also an economic blessing in. time of peace? 

Senator Kenyon. May I ask you one question about your Cana- 
dian plant before you go into that? Have you any director of that 
plant in a foreign country — Germany, for instance ? 

Mr. Washburn. No ; we have no foreign directors. 

Senator Kenyon. You have had, have you not? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes ; we have had. 

Senator Kenyon. With residence in Berlin? 

Mr. Washburn. We have had a foreign director in Dr. Caro, who 
has been for many years my associate, and who has supplied Ger- 
many with her powder material, and is doing so to-day. 

Senator Kenyon. When did he cease to be a director in your com- 
pany ? 

Mr. Washburn. It was after the war broke out. The German 
Government has prevented all correspondence and further communi- 
cation between our German associates and ourselves here. 

Senator Kenyon. Is he still a director in your company? 

Mr. Washburn. No ; he is not. 

Senator Norris. Mr. Washburn, might I ask you if the process you 
use there is held secret ? Have you patents on it ? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes ; it is covered by a cloud of patents ; I should 
think there were 100 of them, and the general principles of the 
process are very simple and very well known. 

Senator Norris. Does your company own the patents? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes. 

Senator Norris. There was something said a while ago by some 
one here to the effect that these patents had expired. What about 
that? 

Mr. Washburn. No ; there is no patent which has expired. I do 
not think there is a single patent, at least I can not recall a single 
patent which has expired on the cyanamid process. 

Senator Norris. If anyone undertook to develop through this bill 
or otherwise in this country a factory, they would have to operate 
under your patents and get the right to operate from your com- 
pany, would they not ? 

Mr. Washburn. They would have to operate under our patents. 
No means has ever been discovered for doing otherwise. 



14 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

Senator Kenton 1 . Suppose the Government would construct a 
plant as considered in this bill, would that have anything to do with 
your patents? 

Mr. Washburn. The operation would be carried out under the 
processes covered by our patents. What right the Government would 
have to do that is a matter I have never given any consideration. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. If there was any necessity, we would 
do it and consider the question of liability afterwards. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. I asked the department this 
morning as to the cyanamid process on the phone, and they replied 
that as to one of the processes — perhaps the main one — the patents 
on that would expire within a year. Are you acquainted with that? 
I will get a detailed statement as to that later? 

Mr. Washburn. Our patents — those that make the process feasi- 
ble and practicable, begin about 1910. 

The Chairman. They are improvements? 

Mr. Washburn. They are improvements. 

The Chairman. You never let those patents run out? 

Mr. Washburn. We never let them run out, and under the pat- 
ents, as I was telling you, we have reduced our cost since we took 
up the industry about one-half. That cutting in half, the means by 
which it is done, is covered with patents and they date from about 
1910. 

Senator Gronna. Is the arc process a patented process, Mr. Wash- 
burn ? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes; and I believe the patents expire in either 
two or three years on the Birkeland-Eyde furnace, and then there 
are a number of concentration methods that necessarily follow the 
furnace, and the most economical of them are covered by patents 
running quite a number of years. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. I would like to hear from you 
how this Government is to avail itself, both in times of peace and 
war, of these processes? 

Senator Smith of Georgia. It is now just five minutes of 12. Do 
you not think, gentlemen, we had better take a recess until half past 
12, and attend to the preliminary work of the Senate ? 

Senator Bankhead. I would like to ask a question. Do you know 
of any available power in the United States where nitrogen or nitric 
acid could be profitably manufactured? Is there not a site on the 
Tennessee River that would cover that whole question? 

Mr. Washburn. The question on power sites, which the committee 
asked and what I tried to make clear in my answer, was taken to 
refer to the commercial development of the nitrogen enterprise car- 
ried out in the usual way with private capital. 

The Chairman. To compete with imported material? 

Mr. Washburn. To compete with imported material. But there 
is a means by which the Government can cooperate with private 
capital, and in effect make our water powers in this country as cheap 
as the cheap water powers of Canada and Norway. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Let us now recess for awhile and dis- 
cuss that after we come back. 

The Chairman. The committee will now take a recess. 
(Thereupon, at 11.57 o'clock a. m., the committee took a recess 
until 2.30 this afternoon.) 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 15 

AFTER RECESS. 

At the expiration of the recess the hearing was resumed, Senator 
Smith of South Carolina presiding. 

Senator Page. Mr. Chairman, let me read into the record at this 
point, because it applies here, this statement : 

In 1907 Germany had 43,000,000 acres sowed to wheat, harley, rye, oats, and 
potatoes, and harvested therefrom 3,000.000.000 bushels; while from 88,500,000 
acres sowed to the same crops in the United States, American farmers har- 
vested only 1,875,000,000 bushels. In other words, from less than one-half of 
the area German farmers harvested double the number of bushels. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. And what are you reading 
from Senator? 

Senator Page. From a speech I once made in the Senate. At that 
time I took pains to look up the facts in regard to Germany's 
efficiency. This table I took from page 13, Senate Document No. 176, 
Sixty-second Congress, first session, and I think it is reliable. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Well, Mr. Washburn, when we 
adjourned you were beginning to discuss the question of how we 
might avail ourselves of a sufficient supply both in peace and in war. 
We would be glad for you to continue. The main question here in- 
volved is the availability of our water power for the production of 
this element and relieving us from dependence on foreign countries. 

Mr. Washburn. I appreciate that. I would like to take a moment 
to make a correction and to complete an answer to a question that was 
asked. 

The cultivated area in Germany is about 125,000 square miles, and 
in the United States about 500,000 square miles. In making the con- 
version into acres this morning I dropped off a cipher, and the culti- 
vated acreage of the United States should have been 320,000,000 in- 
stead of 32,000,000. 

Then a question was asked as to the reasons that I found in my 
consultations with Dr. Eyde and his associates why the arc process 
was not appropriate to American conditions. I gave you one of 
them. The other is that die arc process is not a fertilizer process; 
it is a nitric acid and explosive material process. A fertilizer ma- 
terial was produced. Its production has ceased now, and it is very 
doubtful if it will ever be revived by the arc process. But the fer- 
tilizer that was produced was one suitable only to foreign conditions 
where the farmer scatters his material over the soil, strewing it by 
hand, and putting upon the soil at three different times each year 
three different plant foods, instead of mixing and applying them all 
together. That is what 50 cents a day labor can do compared with 
$2 a clay labor in this country. We must make a mixture of our various 
plant foods, and the nitrogenous material runs through the drills 
with the phosphoric and the potash material. The fertilizer material 
produced by the arc process is not suitable for mixing ; w e have never 
been able to use it successfully in that way. notwithstanding many 
hundreds of thousand of dollars have been spent in endeavors to so 
change the character of the product that that could be done. 

Furthermore, it is a low-grade product, and therefore its trans- 
portation is costly; it contains a comparatively small quantity of 
plant food. 



16 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

Then it has this other very serious handicap. Now, we are get- 
ting into some of the intricacies of the fertilizer problem, and in 
that as in nearly every other human activity it is the detailed thing, 
the intimate thing, that is important, and not broad generalizations. 
Calcium nitrate, which is the fertilizer material produced by the arc 
process, is so quickly available in the soil, so quickly made use of by 
the plant, that the plant luxuriates under it and gets an excess of 
foliage with no adequate increase in the crop. Therefore it is neces- 
sary to use it in relatively small quantities. 

The same is true of the use of Chilean nitrate. Both of those ni- 
trates act as excitations to the plant, to give it, you might say, a good 
digestive apparatus, rather than true plant foods in themselves. 
And therefore, even though you might have an unlimited quantity 
of that material at a low price — which two conditions, as a matter 
of fact, do not exist — it is only in limited quantities that you could 
use the nitrogenous product that comes from the arc process. 

Now, we have spoken of the reasons why there was abandoned in 
the United States any idea of using the arc process. Not only was 
that our own decision, but it has been the decision of others who have 
investigated it. First, its use of so much power that we could not 
find it. Practically it Avas not to be had. Second, the cost of the 
product. And for a moment, consider that the very cheapest power 
that could be secured in the United States would not be less than 
$10 per annual horsepower continuous, and at this figure the cost 
of power alone for producing a pound of nitrogen fertilizer by the 
arc process would be as great as the total cost of producing it by the 
cyanimid process. So we do not have to carry the comparison any 
further. 

So we had those three difficulties, and then the further one that it 
is not a material that can be used universally, nor have we been 
able to discover any means by which it could be transformed into a 
nitrogenous product that could be used universally as a fertilizer. 

Now, we come to the question of the solution of the problem. My 
interest in the question in Washington grew out of an invitation from 
the War Department about six months ago — at that time confidential 
in its nature — to suggest to one of the bureaus that seemed to be taxed 
with that responsibility, a means of guaranteeing a powder supply 
for this Government in the event of war. The feeling was it would 
be necessary for the Government to establish and build and hold idle 
a nitric-acid plant capable of producing 180,000 tons of nitric acid 
per annum. Germany's present use is equivalent to pretty nearly 
300,000 tons of nitric acid per annum. This was two-thirds of the 
German war consumption that was considered to be a suitable sup- 
ply for this country. It would be a great burden upon this country, 
and even after the burden had been shouldered of very doubtful 
utility and questionable as to its effectiveness to secure results, to 
build a plant as complicated as this would have to be, with water 
power, and the whole thing held idle for the 95 years of peace that 
we hope for as against 1 to 5 years of war. 

(At this point Senator Gore entered the room and assumed the 
chair.) 

Mr. Washburn. Therefore, out of these discussions there grew up 
the thought that if the Government should establish or aid in the 
establishment of a factory or factories which in times of war would 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 17 

furnish the 180,000 tons of nitric acid and which in times of peace 
could be used for the manufacture of fertilizer, we would have 
transformed this military burden completely into a great economic 
advantage. 

Now any great economic advantage to the country is not to be 
found in producing a moderate number of tons of nitrogenous mate- 
rial through the fixation of atmospheric nitrogen for two reasons. 
The first is a commercial one. The fertilizer industry in this coun- 
try lies under a peculiar burden. Notwithstanding our farmers pay 
twice what the German farmers pay for their fertilizer, there is no 
great money in the fertilizer industry. There is no great profit in 
it. The various great fertilizer concerns, and particularly the small 
ones, get only a moderate return upon their money, and no adequate 
return compared with the commercial risks they take. The farmer 
is furnished with his material, usually of very low grade, made up 
of nondescript materials, which are odds and ends gathered from 
every quarter of the country, and for that matter, from every quar- 
ter of the world, which must pay a high transportation cost to the 
mixing plants. There is a mixing charge, a carrying charge, and a 
big transportation charge to the farmer's town, his nearest railway 
station. The American Cyanamid Co. has been furnishing cyanamid 
as one of the mixing materials. The economic advantage that it 
might be to the country is entirely lost. It is only a small amount 
compared to the total, only one of the materials that are mixed with 
others. It comes out as a part of a very low-grade, high-cost ferti- 
lizer. 

The Chairman. What percentage of the cost does it constitute? 

Mr. Washburn. It constitutes of the total sales of fertilizer in the 
United States only 3 per cent of the nitrogenous materials alone, and 
only about 1-J per cent of the total fertilizer bill. 

Senator Norris. That is, the nitrogen? 

Mr. Washburn. The cyanamid nitrogen. 

Senator Norris. That is the product — — 

Mr. Washburn. That is the product of the American Cyan- 
amid Co. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. You mean of the commercial 
products of the factory? 

Mr. Washburn. Those percentages of the total amount used by 
the farmer at the present time in the United States. 

Senator Page. The very large element of expense in commercial 
fertilizers is potash, is it not ? 

Mr. Washburn. No. The fertilizer 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Before you answer that ques- 
tion let me get this clear. You mean that the product of the cyan- 
amid factory is only a small per cent of the ingredients that" the 
farmer uses but not of the ingredients that the factory produces in 
the process of manufacturing cyanamid? 

Mr. Washburn. I mean that the product of the Cyanamid Co. at 
this time, notwithstanding it has a large factory and is producing 
practically all of its material for the fertilizer market in the United 
States — I mean that the cyanamid product constitutes only about 3 
per cent of the nitrogen used by the farmers. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Of the United States? 

33410—16 2 



18 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

Mr. Washburn. Of the United States. 

The Chairman. You mean in the form of various fertilizers? 

Mr. Washburn. In the form of various fertilizers. And it con- 
stitutes of the total fertilizer bill only about 1^ per cent. 

The point I wish to make is that, whatever the merits may be of 
the nitrogen fertilizer produced in that way, it is lost in the great 
mixture, the great bulk of other materials that are high priced ; that 
it can not affect the whole fertilizer industry or the use of the ferti- 
lizers in any great economic sense. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Eight there, Mr. Washburn, 
I would like to say that we have arrived at a formula that is uni- 
versal so far as fertilizers are used in the cotton belt. By experi- 
mentation we found that the same balanced fertilizer is about equally 
good for practically all the staple crops planted — oats, -corn, all the 
cereals that we produce in the South, and cotton. It runs in the 
proportion of 8-2-2, 8-3-3, and 8-4-4. Those are the proportions 
in which the chemicals run: Eight per cent phosphoric acid, 3 per 
cent potash, and 3 per cent ammonia. By experiment we have 
found that from Virginia to the peninsula of Florida, as far 
as the cotton belt extends, with fertilizer mixed in those pro- 
portions you get the maximum result. It is a balanced ration for 
the plant, and we have found that is true even of our grains. That 
is about the standard — 8-3-3. It is called " standard " ; 8-2-2 is low 
grade and 8-4-4 is high grade. Under the law of the State you can 
stamp it " low," " standard," and " high grade." That would be as 
the relation of 3 to 11 for the nitrogen. Of course, the ammonia 
runs a bit higher, but it is the same chemical formula practically. 

The Chairman. Then it is not the cheap nitrogen in Germany 
that enables them to use fertilizer on such a large scale? 

Mr. Washburn. It is very largely cheap nitrogen that enables 
them to do that, but they get correspondingly cheap their other in- 
gredients. 

Senator Page. What is the most expensive ingredient to-day, if it 
is not the potash ? 

Mr. Washburn. I will give you the figures. Our fertilizer bill 
in this country is about $175,000,000 a year, of which $75,000,000 is 
in nitrogen, or ammonia as we call it — the two terms are practically 
interchangeable— $65,000,000 in phosphoric acid, and $35,000,000 in 
potash. You see, potash is 20 per cent — 75, 65, and 35. 

Senator Norris. Would you mix those materials together in that 
proportion to make what we call a balanced ration ? 

Mr. Washburn. In that proportion of values, yes. 

Senator Norris. Now, this nitrate factory — we will get nitrogen 
out of the air by developing the water power — supplies only the 
nitrate portion of that ? 

Mr. Washburn. Supplies only the nitrate portion ; the other must 
come from other sources. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. But the nitrate portion is the most 
expensive of the three ? 

Mr. Washburn. Far more expensive. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. And costs $75,000,000 out of $175,- 
000,000? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes. 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 19 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. I think Mr. Washburn will 
bear me out that in normal times the cost of the nitrogen up to the 
present has been at least three-fourths of the co?t of other material. 
Take our nitrate of soda, for instance. It is about 35 per cent 
nitrogen. We get $50 a ton for that. I am talking about what 
goes to the consumer. Phosphoric acid is 16 per cent. It will cost 
him about $12.50 per ton — 16 per cent. Kainit, which is our form 
of potash, will cost us about $11 : that runs from 12^ to 13 per cent 
potash. So you can see that, deducting your $11 and your 12}- and 
adding them, you have 18-5—4. 

Mr. Washburn. Yes. If you come to make a comparison between 
the unit weight of the three substances, then the proportions of 
which you speak are correct. But when we come to speak of the 
total bill of the farmer, his total bill for nitrogen is not three- 
fourths of the total, but about seventy-five one-hundred-and-seventy- 
fifths, which is just 40 per cent. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. You are taking the thing as a 
whole ? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes. 

The Chairman. You were speaking of some other form when you 
said it was one and a half per cent. I did not quite catch that. 

Mr. Washburn. I was saying that of the nitrogen produced by 
the American Cyanamid Co. it constituted about H per cent of 
the total fertilizer bill in the United States. I am trying to bring 
out this feature, that it is not purely a question of the nitrogen in- 
dustry or any particular process in order to secure this thing of eco- 
nomic advantage to the people of the United States; it is the meet- 
ing of peculiar limitations of the fertilizer industry to-day, and it 
can not be done simply through any old application of the art of 
fixing atmospheric nitrogen. 

The Chairman. Is it your idea, then, that you have to cheapen 
each factor? 

Mr. Washburn. No. Here is the point. Here is one of the limita- 
tions of the fixation of atmospheric nitrogen. None of the processes 
produces a material which can be used in unlimited quantities in 
mixtures. Cyanamid can not be used in unlimited quantities in mix- 
tures, for the reason that if we attempt to use in our mixed fertilizer 
a large amount of cyanamid it reacts injuriously upon the other 
constituents, at least upon one of them — phosphoric acid. There- 
fore, while this country might cover itself with cyanamid factories 
and have an unlimited quantity of the product, as long as that prod- 
uct has to go into the ordinary mixture and follow the present 
methods of distributing the mixture to the farmers it would not have 
any great economic significance. It would be a profitable commercial 
undertaking, and it would end right there. I have already developed 
for you the limitation upon the calcium nitrate from the arc process. 

Now, what is the answer? The answer is simply this, that the 
farmer has got to have, first of all, cheap nitrogen. Let us see. 
Sixty per cent of the cultivable area in the United States is devoted 
to grain producing, and yet the cost of nitrogen to the farmer in the 
United States is so great to-day, and the cost of fertilizers generally, 
that he does not get an assured profitable return from the use of 
fertilizers on grain crops. Therefore, broadly speaking, there is 60 



20 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

per cent of the cultivated area of this country to which the applica- 
tion of fertilizer is prevented by the fact that it is not profitable 
under present costs. 

What is necessary to bring the costs down? A number of things. 
First, a material that can reach the farmers' door cheaply. That 
means that it shall be a high-grade material. In the United States 
in 1910 — there is a slight improvement each year — the average 
fertilizer used in this country was the 8 — 2 — 2. That means that for 
only 12 pounds of plant food the farmer had to transport and 
handle 100 pounds of material. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Up to 15 years ago the bulk of 
the sacked and tagged fertilizers was 8 — 2^ — 1. 

Mr. Washburn. Yes; but now the transportation burden alone 
is a very serious thing. The cost of getting it over the muddy roads 
in the spring — in the South particularly — is a very serious thing. 
To have 88 pounds of perfectly useless material in order to have 12 
pounds for the plant— that is a serious difficulty. 

Now, after five years, four years of the most careful and expensive 
research work, there has been developed a material which contains 60 
per cent of plant food — phosphoric acid and nitrogen. It is a 
chemical compound. It is one that has been known to the scientific 
and agricultural world for many years as the superior fertilizer par 
excellence, but its commercial production has been impracticable. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Is that ammonium phosphate? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes; that is ammonium phosphate. Now, it has 
some contributory qualities. For instance, it can be produced in 
almost any ratio of nitrogen to phosphoric acid, as from 1 to 1 up 
to 1 to 1. A factory is now being erected in New York harbor which, 
together with the properties that are necessary to operate the factory, 
will cost between $5,000,000 and $7,000,000. In determining trans- 
portation costs it was found that there could be transported 1 pound 
of plant food in ammonium phosphate — from the factory on deep 
water, in New York, around to San Francisco or Seattle — for one- 
half of what it costs to transport 1 pound of plant food in the ordi- 
nary 8 — 2 — 2 goods from the ordinary mixing factory, to the farmer. 

Let us see how that came out. In 8 — 2 — 2 goods there are 12 
units of plant food, and $2 is almost universally fixed as the rail 
rate from the factory to the farmer. In other words, he pays $2 
for transporting 240 pounds of plant food. We can transport 1,200 
pounds around to the other coast for $5. That is at the rate of 
240 pounds for $1. In other words, it is one-half as much burden 
upon the useful plant food to transport this new material from New 
York to San Francisco or Seattle as it is to take it from a fertilizer 
factory and distribute it to the farmer on the usual $2 freight rate. 

Senator Page. Is that because so much phosphate rock or other 
cheap material is introduced in commercial fertilizer? 

Mr. Washburn. It is chiefly because the materials that are avail- 
able for use in fertilizers are so low grade in themselves, carrying so 
little plant food, that when you come to make the mixture you can 
only get a certain amount of plant food in the total weight. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. In my State we have large 
deposits of phosphate rock. Practical experience taught us that by 
the same treatment with sulphuric acid we got from 14 to 16 per 
cent available phosphoric acid; and we found that was infinitely 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 21 

cheaper than to try to extract any more of the phosphorus from the 
mother lode. It was a cheaper process. 

Speaking of the cost of transportation, quite a number of years 
ago we stopped purchasing kainit and got the muriate of potash — 
which is the same thing, only the muriate of potash ran 18 per cent — 
and we found that in hauling by wagon and in the freight rate we 
cut it four or five or six times in two. 

Mr. Washburn. That is a parallel case. 

Senator Page. Is it not true that many of your fertilizer elements 
are introduced to liberate what is already in the soil ? 

Mr. Washburn. Not with that conscious purpose. It is true that 
there are certain things which affect bacterial life in a way which 
increases the assimilative power of the plant without actually giving 
it additional food. 

Senator Page. I want to quote from an authority that Senator 
Smith of Georgia has great faith in ; that is, Dr. Soule* At a meet- 
ing of our committee at one time he said : 

The virgin soil from Banks County, Ga., contains 6,400 pounds of nitrogen per 
acre-foot, 4,000 pounds of phosphoric acid, and nearly 15,000 pounds of potash 
per acre-foot. 

Now, after 50 years of use of that soil it becomes 2,000 pounds 
of nitrogen, less than 2,000 pounds of phosphoric acid, and, in many 
instances, not over 6,000 to 8,000 pounds of potash. And he claimed 
to us that for every pound of cotton taken from southern soil 3 
cents' worth of phosphorus was exhausted. I had supposed that the 
use of fertilizer was not only to improve the quality of the soil but 
to liberate the element in the soil. Now, here is a claim made, I think, 
that every bushel of wheat carries with it 27 cents' worth of phos- 
phorus; every bushel of corn, 17 cents' worth; and every pound of 
cotton, 3 cents' worth. Every pound of cotton taken from the soil 
carries with it 3 cents' worth of phosphorus. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Now, let us come back to the produc- 
tion of nitrogen. 

Senator Bankhead. You stated a while a£X> that 12 pounds out of 
every hundred in the ordinary fertilizer is plant food. What is the 
rest of it? 

Mr. Washburn. The rest is filler. 

Senator Bankhead. It is a filler, but what is it? Is it sand? 

Mr. Washburn. No. For instance, they will use a tankage with 
only 2 or 3 per cent of nitrogen, and the other 97 or 98 pounds will 
be extraneous materials that have no plant food in them at all. Then, 
there is some ground-up coal that is put in to balance the proportions. 
Sometimes ground limestone and various materials are artificially 
added as filler. 

Senator Page. You speak of tankage. Now, tankage, in my judg- 
ment, is a very valuable fertilizer. If you take tankage that is made 
from bones and the meat of animals that have died from disease, 
and they are put into a digester and put under steam, and brought 
out and dried, that becomes a valuable fertilizer — just from what in- 
gredients I do not know, but it must have some beneficial use, else 
it would not be purchased by those who are expert in buying fer- 
tilizer. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. If the chairman will permit 
me, we are interested now in getting 



22 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

Senator Page. Just a word further, Senator. I know that all the 
tankage of a certain grade that can be purchased is easily sold at 
from $22 to $30 a ton. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. It is away up above that now 
on account of the price of nitrogen — and it is a good fertilizer too. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. It has nitrogen and phosphorus both 
in it. 

Mr. Washburn. Nitrogen and a little phosphorus. It is a very 
excellent fertilizer, but it is of very low grade. It involves a high 
cost of transportation per unit of plant food. The animal tankage 
which you speak of is quite a different thing from garbage tankage, 
but for the plant foods they contain they are both in excellent form. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. You have stated to us the importance 
of nitrogen for agriculture. What I want to hear something more 
about now is the development of a nitrogen plant in the United 
States. 

Mr. Washburn. Now we come to this question : How can we estab- 
lish a nitrogen plant in the United States? We have found that it 
has got to be done on a large scale. We have found, I take it, that 
it is important to produce something more than a simple nitrogenous 
material ; in other words, a compound material of nitrogen and phos- 
phoric acid. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Would it be possible to divide 
that and just let us know what are the chances of producing the 
simple nitrate or nitrogen? I want to know if it is not possible in 
this country to produce nitrogen independent of its combination with 
anything else. 

Mr. Washburn. Absolutely so; and only in detail, as you might 
say, is the subject complicated by adding phosphoric acid to the 
nitrogen, and it gives the subject an economic value that entirely out- 
shines every other consideration. 

Senator Page. What benefit can there be in eliminating that other 
element that you speak of ? 

Mr. Washburn. There is no benefit in eliminating the phosphoric 
acid. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. For one thing, if we can get an 
adequate supply of atmospheric nitrogen available for all purposes 
it would be highly important. I mix them on my own farm. I take, 
for instance, the Chilean nitrate, the phosphoric acid, and potash and 
get on my mixing floor and mix them. What I want to know is, can 
we get a substitute for the Chilean nitrate produced in this country ? 
Is it practicable? Is it feasible commercially? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes ; it is, along these lines. In order to have the 
mind fixed upon something, let us take the situation at Muscle Shoals 
on the Tennessee River as an available power site. There is a great 
river needing navigation structures over the shoals, a distance o| 30 
miles, which are practically nonnavigable now, and disconnect the 
upper reaches of the river, navigable for 500 miles from the lower 
reaches of the river. On either side of Muscle Shoals hundreds of 
thousands or even millions of dollars have been spent by the Gov- 
ernment for the purposes of navigation. 

The Chairman. That is in the United States? 

Mr. Washburn. That is in the United States. 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 23 

The Chairman. Do you mean there is a stream in the United 
States that is not navigable? [Laughter.] 

Mr. Washburn. Very few that are not navigable legally, but many 
that are not navigable in practice. 

Those shoals are on the Tennessee River in Alabama. Of course, 
the Tennessee River covers a great many States. 

Senator Kenyon. How much has the Government spent to make 
that navigable down there? 

Mr. Washburn. On the whole of the river? 

Senator Kenyon. At the shoals? 

Mr. Washburn. At the shoals? There is a lateral canal now that 
is called a navigation structure, but which is wholly inadequate to 
any modern use, that has cost the Government anywhere from four 
to five million dollars, and its existence absolutely prevents the de- 
velopment of any power there. 

Senator Kenyon. It is of no use at all for any purpose? 

Mr. Washburn. I should say not; I think it is pretty generally 
conceded. Now, at this point, to give modern navigation facilities, 
which consist of locks and dams, it has been proposed by the Army 
engineers that there shall be two high dams, one 102 feet and the 
other 40 or more feet in height. Dam No. 2 is the one 102 feet in 
height. Here there can be developed continuously 100,000 horse- 
power. It will cost the Government for Dam No. 2 and its locks, 
the substructure, the power house, and the installation of 150,000 
horsepower hydroelectric machinery, $15,000,000. The immediate 
contribution that the Government should make toward a nitric acid 
plant at that point would be $5,000,000. So that if the Government 
should provide power at that point and make its contribution toward 
the nitric-acid plant there would be involved there an expenditure 
by the Government of $20,000,000. 

Senator Kenyon. What do you mean by this contribution? It is 
a contribution to somebody else? 

Mr. Washburn. No. It is a contribution toward a nitric-acid 
plant to be used in times of war; it would not be used in times of 
peace, and therefore would bring no returns. 

Senator Kenyon. But it would still be a Government plant? 

Mr. Washburn. It would still be a Government plant. Now, 
private capital in order to avail itself of the water power in the 
manufacture of fertilizer and some nitric acid in times of peace, 
producing 20,000 or 30,000 tons of nitric acid in times of peace and 
the equivalent of about 2,200,000 tons of 8-2-2 goods, would have to 
expend from $20,000,000 to $24,000,000. Including working capital, 
it would have to be about $24,000,000. 

Now. it is believed that if the Government will furnish power at 
that point to private interests at 3 per cent of the cost of the power 
used, thereby having a return of its ordinary interest rate, private 
capital can then afford, and it would be to its interest, to make its 
investment of $20,000,000 to $24,000,000 and conduct a fertilizer 
industry at that point. 

Let us see what are the merits of this plan. The fertilizer would 
be an ammonium phosphate, which would have the great economic 
advantages that we have been discussing. The factory site is right 
on the edge of — in fact, almost in the phosphate fields of the Tennes- 



24 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

see. Coke can be had very cheaply from Birmingham, which is just 
to the south. Limestone of superior quality is close at hand. The 
plant would be on the Mississippi River drainage, and if one looks 
at the map where there is marked the value of farm products it 
will appear that, with the exception of the southeast and in the 
cotton region, to which we are also very close, almost at the center of 
gravity of the use of fertilizers, the rest of the great production of 
farm products is on the Mississippi River and its tributaries. The 
labor market is most excellent for the conduct of such a business as 
we are speaking of. The enterprise would add to the quantity of 
fertilizer now used in the country between a third and a quarter. 

And what would the Government have secured ? The Government 
would have secured at an interior point, believed by the War Depart- 
ment to be safe from invasion or attack, the only means of providing 
a powder supply by which this Government could conduct a defensive 
war. There the nitric acid could be produced. Now, as to the cost. 
In times of war the Government would have nitric acid at the cost 
to the producer plus such an additional amount as manufacturer's 
profit as the Secretary of War, we will say, in his good judgment 
may from time to time think is reasonable and proper. There would 
be no other hold upon that feature of it. In times of peace you have 
a great quantity of fertilizer right at the point where it is required, 
find accomplish this at such cost for fertilizer that our 60 per cent 
of cultivable area in this country which can not use fertilizer now 
would come in for the use of it 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Because it is too expensive? 

Mr. Washburn. Because it is too expensive; it does not give the 
farmer a sufficiently profitable return, and right at the edge — almost 
the center of gravity — of where 60 per cent of the fertilizers now con- 
sumed in the United States are used, namely, in the cotton States. 

The burden upon the Government, sO far as the fertilizer industry 
is concerned, would be nothing. The benefit to the farmer would be 
the absolute maximum, because the price at which the fertilizer will 
be sold to the farmer will bear a relation to the cost of production, 
and the cost of production at that point, for the reasons I have given 
you, would be an absolute minimum. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Now, Mr. Washburn, what 
other water-power site is available for the two interests? What other 
water powers do you know of in this country that would be avail- 
able — not combining, perhaps, in the same degree the excellencies 
3 r ou have set forth. 

Mr. Washburn. There is one other, in the Northwest on the Colum- 
bia River, what is known as Priest Rapids. Phosphate rock can be 
had there from the western deposits at a low transportation rate. 
Limestone is available at low cost of transportation, because it comes 
down the river, and while it is some distance away it can be very 
cheaply barged to the point of manufacture of the nitrogen. And 
there is the possibility — entirely feasible, too — of transporting the 
product to tidewater by barges, and then putting it onto the ships 
and bringing it around to where most of our fertilizer is used, which 
is on the Atlantic coast. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. That might not be available in time of 
war. 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 25 

Mr. Washburn. Of course, there would be nitric acid produced 
there. It would be a very long way from the place where use would 
be made of it. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Are there any water-power 
sites where they have facilities for getting these other ingredients 
in different parts of the country? 

Mr. Washburn. I do not know of any. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Those are the only two powers that 
you know of 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. You said this morning that 
30,000 horsepower could be economically used in the production of 
atmospheric nitrogen, and I thought perhaps there were other 
powers. 

Mr. Washburn. There are no smaller powers that could be used. 

Senator Norris. I understood you to say this morning you did not 
know of any. 

Mr. Washburn. No ; I do not know of any powers, large or small, 
that I actually would feel warranted in developing for the purpose 
of producing nitrogen within the limits of the United States. I know 
of two large powers where, with the cooperation of the Government, 
it is practicable to do something in the production of nitrogen that 
has great economic significance to the country and would be profitable 
to the manufacturer. 

Senator Norris. Take the Muscle Shoals proposition. The way 
you outlined it you divided up between the Government and private 
capital. I wish you would take two other views of it. First, sup- 
pose the Government does it all, manufacturing for the purpose of 
producing ammunition or whatever it may be needed for, either in 
time of peace or in time of war, and selling the surplus as fertilizer. 
Then take the other view o*f it. Suppose private capital should do 
it all and sell to the Government what it needed in the way of ammu- 
nition and sold the balance to the trade in the form of fertilizer or 
otherwise. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Will you allow me to- interrupt just 
a moment about the Government contribution? As I caught your 
idea, it was really that the Government would be called to contribute 
its credit, that if the Government contributed $20,000,000 private 
capital could afford to pay 3 per cent on the $20,000,000. 

Mr. Washburn. Private capital would pay 3 per cent of such 
portion of the $20,000,000 as was involved in the furnishing of 
power to private capital, and that is $13,000,000. 

That $20,000,000 is divided in this way, Senator Smith : 
$13,000,000 for the dam which serves navigation and also serves 
water power, power house, substructure, superstructure, and equip- 
ment of electrical machinery. That is all that is involved in the 
power. The locks at that point are estimated by the engineers at 
$1,875,000; we call it $2,000,000. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Those locks are for navigation? 

Mr. Washburn. They are for navigation purely and have no other 
use. There is no reason why the fertilizer situation should be 
burdened with an interest charge on navigation locks and their up- 
keep. Now, the amount of nitric acid required in times of war is 
so many times the amount of nitric acid that could possibly be used 



26 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

or disposed of from that plant in time of peace that when you come 
to the last step, in which you produce nitric acid instead of a ferti- 
lizer, you have got to have some special machinery. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. That would be used for that purpose 
only ? • 

Mr. Washburn. For that purpose only. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. But it ought to be there as a safe- 
guard ? 

Mr. Washburn. It ought to be there as a safeguard. In fact, 
such special machinery as would be used in the making of nitric 
acid by the private interest and disposed of in the markets would be 
paid for by the manufacturer. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Entirely? 

Mr. Washburn. Entirely. So what does it amount to? It 
amounts to the Government furnishing power at 3 per cent of the 
cost of the power, and supplying $5,000,000 for a nitric-acid plant — 
or a part of it, the last step in the nitric-acid process — as a safeguard 
in time of war. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. I would like to ask this ques- 
tion right here. Can the cost of the ingredients pure and simple be 
reduced by the operation of these factories as against the cost of 
nitrate of soda? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes, sir; very much lower. 

The Chairman. Is it your idea, Mr. Washburn, that in any ade- 
quate scheme of preparedness the Government must provide and 
maintain an establishment for the production of this nitrogen? 

Mr. Washburn. It must provide a small portion of it — $5,000,000 
out of about $44,000,000. That is the total required. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. He did not catch your question. The 
question was this : Is it your idea that in any complete system of pre- 
paredness by this Government for national defense we must be ready 
to make our own nitrogen inside the United States, where an enemy 
can not interfere with it? 

Mr. Washburn. Absolutely. 

The Chairman. And that the Government must either construct 
or assist in the construction of the plant ? 

Mr. Washburn. Absolutely. 

Senator Norris. Eeturning to the question I asked, Mr. Washburn, 
would it be a practical proposition for the Government, taking Muscle 
Shoals as an illustration, to do it all ? 

Mr. Washburn. From the standpoint of human attainment ; yes. 

Senator Norris. But financially; take the Government's financial 
interest. 

Mr. Washburn. Yes. Let us look at that for a moment. By the 
Government's going into the business of manufacturing and selling 
fertilizer and having part of the plant, the last end of it, available 
for producing nitric acid in time of war, by the investment of $44,- 
000,000 it could go ahead and engage in the manufacture and sale of 
fertilizer and be safeguarded in time of war. 

Senator Wadswortfl Could it manufacture fertilizer profitably 
without capitalization ? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes. 

Senator Norris. It would have the same capitalization that the 
private plant would have? 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 27 

Mr. Washburn. Just the same. 

Senator Page. Did I understand you to say it would not be prac- 
ticable to utilize power that costs more than $10 a horsepower. 

Mr. Washburn. I would like to take up that point. We spoke of 
the installation, dams, water wheels, and electrical machinery neces- 
sary to enable water to develop useful energy, very much as it is 
with a steam plant. We have a steam plant out here on the edge of 
Washington. Say it has a capacity for developing 30,000 horsepower. 
It costs $1,000,000. You ask the engineer what it is costing to make 
power, and he sums up the coal bill, the labor bill, depreciation, and 
interest on the investment, and says it is costing so much per con- 
tinuous horsepower for a year. 

Now, in hydroelectric development of energy the working cost of 
that energy is ordinarily about 80 per cent in the interest charge and 
only about 20 per cent in out-of-pocket expense. The cost of ordi- 
nary hydroelectric power development — and I know pretty well, be- 
cause I have been connected with large power developments — as I 
say, is about 80 per cent in the interest account, because the interest 
and amortization cost is about 10 per cent in the development of water 
power. 

The Chairman. How is that? 

Mr. Washburn. The interest and sinking fund or amortization 
charge is about 10 per cent ; in other words, if we have a plant that 
has cost, say, $2,000,000 cash we will find that interest and amortiza- 
tion on that plant is about $200,000 a year. Now, for private-capital 
developments in Canada we will say for such a water power as we 
have available there at $40 — the interest and amortization charge 
would be 10 per cent of $10, which is $1 a horsepower. The out-of- 
pocket expense would be from $1 to $2. We will take the limit; if 
it is $2 more, that is $6 per horsepower year that the horsepower 
would cost us. 

Now, if the Government developed a water power in the United 
States which does not cost as little as $40 but costs as much as $100 
and we put an interest and amortization charge against the $100 of 
4 per cent there is $4 for the interest and amortization charge on a 
plant costing two and a half times as much as the Canadian plant. 
And if we add $1.50 or $2 to that we get to $6. In other words, with 
the money furnished by that agency which has unlimited credit you 
can bring into the United States all of the advantages, so far as the 
burden upon the article produced is concerned, that you would have 
in going to Canada where your investment for power would be only 
40 per cent as much. 

Senator Page. Why would not this be the fair way to treat it: 
If that power in Alabama could be produced for $25 a horsepower, 
why would you say it was worth only $10 a horsepower? 

Mr. Washburn. It is not the question, is it, of what it is worth? 
We have been dealing with the question of what it costs. Now, let 
us look at that question of worth. To begin with, one could not 
sell a large quantity of power in Alabama at that point for $25; 
but suppose we could. What use is made of it? It goes into a 
municipality for electric lights, street railways, and small motors. 
Do you know that the difference in Alabama between the cost of 
generating power by steam and by water is only a fraction of a cent, 



28 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

and yet the city user of that power when it is distributed to him pays 
ordinarily about 6 cents. Now, what economic significance is there 
in saving a fraction of a cent in the cost of a horsepower to a cus- 
tomer who pays 6 cents for it. The feeling that the economic value 
of the development of water power is fairly related to the money 
value that it has for muncipal or general public use is a completely 
mistaken one. 

Let us take a water power that is cheaply produced and used by a 
manufacturer as compared with municipal use. I figured it out 
during my connection with the Alabama Power Co.. as president — 
one of the great power companies of the country — furnishing a great 
amount of power in central Alabama 

The Chairman. Is that water power? 

Mr. Washburn. That is water power. Whether it is water power 
or steam power, so far as concerns the man who uses electric light, 
if he got all the advantage of the water power as compared with 
the steam, I estimated it would make a diiference of 4 or 5 per cent 
in his monthly bill. 

When you take that same water power and introduce it in an 
industry which cheapens your food supply, or produces, we will say, 
electric steel, which in turn has other uses— a large number of men 
are given employment — it puts an industry into that country that 
never would have gone there except for the cheap power. You have 
created something entirely new out of nothing. The project goes on, 
and results in its refinement in the employment of more men, intro- 
ducing another industry. So that in the one place you have pro- 
duced an absolutely new and valuable economic situation, which does 
not apply in any respect, as I see it, in the use of power for what 
we may call municipal purposes. 

The Chairman. Do you mean that the consumer of power in a 
municipality does not get the benefit of the cheaper production of 
the water power? 

Mr. Washburn. Ordinarily he does not get it; but even if he does 
it does not mean anything that is of political or economic im- 
portance. 

The Chairman. He can not pass it on? 

Mr. Washburn. He can not pass it on. 

Senator Norris. If he does not get the benefit of it, it would be so 
small it would be negligible? 

Mr. Washburn. It would be negligible. 

Senator Norris. I want to ask you, in connection with the Govern- 
ment operation of power, about the development of the water power 
you were speaking of in Norway, and particularly in Germany. Is 
that done by the Government or by private individuals there? 

Mr. Washburn. In Norway entirely by private individuals. 

Senator Norris. And as to Germany? 

Mr. Washburx. In Germany by private individuals until the 
war broke out. 

Senator Norris. Now, was this 300,000 horsepower that you told 
us this morning had been developed since the beginning of the war 
developed entirely by the Government? 

Mr. Washburn. That i:-, by the cyanamid company under an 
arrangement with the Government, by which the Government con- 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 29 

stituted a nitrogen monopoly, by which the sale of nitrogen in Ger- 
many until 1922 shall be first from cyanamid and, when that shall be 
exhausted, then of other materials. 

Senator Norris. Do they make fertilizer? 

Mr. Washburn. Oh, yes. 

Senator Norris. Is this 300,000 horsepower 

Mr. Washburn. At the present time this 300,000 horsepower is 
producing explosive material, but at the close of the war it will turn 
to fertilizer. 

Senator Norris. Now, what will be the expense at the close of the 
war in the way of machinery, etc., to change the output into fer- 
tilizer ? 

Mr. Washburn. Oh, it is a very slight change ; it is not material. 

Senator Norris. That is a point I wanted to hear you on. If these 
plants that you have been speaking about — I judge from what you 
say if you are going to manufacture fertilizer you would have some 
different machinery from what you would have if you were going to 
manufacture explosives? 

Mr. Washburn. In the matter of nitric acid, we use a succession 
of processes, each with its own type of machinery. There are three 
main processes which stop at fertilizer nitrogen. Then, there is a 
small addition which converts the fertilizer nitrogen into nitric acid. 

Senator Norris. As I understand you, in the Muscle Shoals propo- 
sition the expenditure on that last transformation would be about 
$5,000,000? 

Mr. Washburn. For the Government's part of it, about $5,000 000. 
Private capital would manufacture nitric acid in this plant to the ex- 
tent of 30,000 tons a year. That would leave 150,000 tons capacity in 
this final process to be installed by the Government. Of that 150,000, 
90,000 would be absolutely complete, ready to start at a moment's 
notice, and the remaining 60,000 

Senator Norris. Would be used continuously ? 

Mr. Washburn. No. The remaining 60,000 at this point would 
have its buildings installed and everything stored except mercantile 
articles that are required, thereby requiring practically only labor to 
complete the plant to 180,000 tons capacity in three months. There 
would be no economy or sense in the Government's bringing it up the 
full 150,000 tons in the beginning, because it would take three months 
to get the initial Government plant fully in tune, as we call it, operat- 
ing on a scale of 60,000 tons. 

Senator Norris. When that was done and you proceeded there to 
manufacture explosives — 180,000 tons, was it ? They could not make 
any fertilizer at all when they did that, could they ? 

Mr. Washburn. Not when they were producing that full quantity. 

Senator Norris. As I understand it, then, in the manufacture of 
nitrogen for explosive purposes you need additional machinery and 
put the product through one process in addition to what is required 
when you are manufacturing fertilizer only ? 

Mr. Washburn. That is entirely correct. 

Senator Norris. And that additional machinery that you speak of 
would, in this particular case, to a great extent just be idle when you 
were making fertilizer and not explosives ? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes. 



30 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. The Government would need some 
nitrogen to prepare explosives, even in times of peace. Would it 
be feasible to continue the operation of a plant for fertilizer pur- 
poses and at the same time from such a plant make such nitrogen 
as the Government would need for the preparation of explosives 
during times of peace? 

Mr. Washburn. Entirely so; and provision was made for that. 
Provsion is made for that with private capital, for the reason that 
it is anticipated that in the purchase of its nitric acid in times of 
peace the Government would pay the cost and a reasonable profit 
to be fixed at the will of the Secretary of War. 

Senator Kenyon. How do you mean that it has been provided 
for? Has this matter been arranged somewhere? 

Mr. Washburn. In the plan that we have under discussion, which 
is the result of four months of study and an enormous amount of 
figuring and calculation 

Senator Kenyon, Is it in this bill? 

Mr. Washburn No; it is not in any bill. It is the result of an 
invitation to me to confer with the War Department to consider 
means by which it may have a powder supply in time of war. 

Senator Kenyon. Do you understand, Mr. Washburn, that this 
bill before us now that we are trying to consider has any refer- 
ence to the Muscle Shoals proposition? Is it applicable in any way 
to the Muscle Shoals proposition? 

Mr. Washburn. I know of nothing in the bill except in a most 
general way that it proposes to appropriate $15,000,000 for the 
establishment of a Government nitrogen plant. I do not know 
that it has reference to Muscle Shoals or to any other particular 
place. 

Senator Kenyon. Do you understand that the $15,000,000 was to 
be used in connection with private capital at Muscle Shoals? 

Mr. Washburn. Of that I know nothing. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. You knew nothing about the introduc- 
tion of this bill yourself? 

Mr. Washburn. Nothing whatever. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. You were not consulted by Senator 
Smith of South Carolina? 

Mr. Washburn. No, sir. 

Senator Kenyon. You have had this matter ,up with the House 
Committee on Military Affairs? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes, sir ; I had a hearing before the House Com- 
mittee on Military Affairs, and a hearing before the Agricultural 
Committee of the House. 

Senator Kenyon. Provision has been made in the House military 
bill, has it not, in section 82, covering this same thing? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes; a general provision is there, authorizing 
the establishment of a nitrogen industry and the appropriation of 
such an amount as may be necessary to that end. It is very general. 

Senator Kenyon. But that is applicable only to the Muscle Shoals 
proposition, is it not, as contained in the House military bill? 

Mr. Washburn. I should not think so; absolutely not. It is in the 
most general terms. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. I should like to state, as the 
author of this bill 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 31 

Senator Kenyon. I would like to have three minutes, at least, in 
which to ask questions. 

Mr. Washburn. I understood that the hearing had no reference 
to the Muscle Shoals bill at all. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. I want to say that in intro- 
ducing this bill my attention had never been specifically called to 
the Muscle Shoals or any other water power in this country. The 
thing I was trying to do was to have the Government supply itself 
with this ingredient that is so necessary in both the capacities dis- 
cussed here. 

Senator Kenyon. As I understand this proposition, there are 
only two places in the country where it can be done — Muscle Shoals 
and out in Washington. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. I would like to have Dr. Nor- 
ton, who is our Government man and who is thoroughly familiar 
with all these propositions, to appear before the committee, and I 
would like to ask permission of the committee to have him here and 
let him state just what he thinks about the situation. 

Senator Kenton. I was just trying to find out about the bill. 

Senator Gronna. You stated that you knew nothing about this 
bill. Would it not be possible, without some legislation, to put into 
operation the plants which we have been talking about? 

Mr. Washburn. We consider it commercially impracticable to 
establish a nitrogen industry within the limits of the United States. 
The proof of that lies in our plans and purposes. 

The Chairman. Why could it not be done at Niagara Falls, on this 
side, as well as on the Canadian side? 

Mr. Washburn. What we pay at Niagara Falls for our power now 
is more than we can afford to pay in continuing the industry, and 
what we can afford to pay is one-third to one-half of what we would 
have to pay for power on this side. We pay $10.50 per horsepower 
continuous on the Canadian side, which we could not get for less 
than $16, or, possibly, not less than $20 on this side. 

Mr. Bankhead. Is there very much power on this side? 

Mr. Washburn. As a matter of fact, there is a shortage. 

The Chairman. Is there not sufficient power at Keokuk? 

Mr. Washburn. That is an expensive power, and I do not know 
what remains there available as continuous power. We have to have 
continuous power every day of the year. 

The Chairman. You do not know anything about the raw ma- 
terials there, whether thev will be available or not? 

Mr. Washburn. We might get limestone, which is very important 
to us, but as to the question of a suitable coke supply, and, particu- 
larly, phosphate rock supply, it would be an unfavorable site. 

I want to state to Senator Norris that the machinery for the pro- 
duction of the ammonium-phosphate fertilizer would be additional 
to the machinery and equipment for the production of nitrogen only ; 
but if we are to produce the nitrogen material only which would be 
available for agricultural purposes as well as explosives, the am- 
monium-phosphate machinery would not be necessary. 

Senator Norris. You could produce that at one place and ship it 
where you had the other material, and use it there? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes, sir. 



32 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

Senator Norris. The question of transportation for the nitrate 
proper would not be a very large item, would it, Mr. Washburn? 
For instance, if we were going to manufacture nitrate now where 
there were not the other ingredients in that vicinity to mix it with 
and make fertilizer, would it be a practicable proposition to transport 
the nitrate to some other locality where the product did abound and 
mix it there and complete the fertilizer? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes ; such a thing is not illogical. Whether they 
have the actual, physical conditions to make it practicable at the 
moment, I can not say; but this will clear up what is probably a 
question in your mind: The first step, and, up to the present time, 
you might say, the only step in the production of a fertilizer nitroge- 
nous material known as calcium cyanamid is to bring together the 
electric current, atmospheric nitrogen through the making of liquid 
air, limestone, and coal. You naturally want to be where the result- 
ant of advantage as to those four things is the greatest. They pro- 
duce a material which is a dark-gray powder. That material you 
can transport anywhere you choose, put it into what we call auto- 
claves, great boilers of inch and a quarter steel, transform it into 
ammonia, and from ammonia into ammonium nitrate, nitric acid, etc. 

Senator Norris. The point I wanted to get, or rather the point I 
wanted to make plain, was that if we would manufacture nitrate in 
some locality where there were not the other materials necessary to 
make a balanced fertilizer, would the transportation of this nitrate 
be any considerable item? It would not be bulky or heavy as com- 
pared to the fertilizer, would it? 

Mr. Washburn. That is just what we are doing to-day. We are 
transporting it from Canada long distances. 

Senator Norris. You say you have to have limestone and coal ? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes, sir. 

Senator Norris. In other words, the things you make it out of 
would be air — and that we have everywhere — limestone, coal, and 
then the power to make it? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes, sir. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Water power? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes, sir. 

Senator Norris. If you had the coal and the limestone located in 
the vicinity of the power, you would have a practical proposition? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes, sir. 

Senator Norris. You could handle the balance by transportation? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes, sir. 

Senator Norris. This product that is important for an explosive, 
the nitrate, does it deteriorate with age? Could it be stored and 
kept? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes, sir. 

Senator Norris. It would be just as good years after it was made? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes; so far as the quality of the product is con- 
cerned. It stands almost unlimited storage. 

Senator Norris. The Government could, if it wanted to, prepare 
itself for war in time of peace, manufacture the nitrate and store it? 

Mr. Washburn. When it comes to transforming that stored prod- 
uct into nitric acid, we have a very serious loss of efficiency with age. 
When it comes to using it as a fertilizer there is no loss. So it is 
not practicable to store it and hold it for the making of nitric acid. 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 38 

Senator Xorris. Could you not make it into nitric acid itself and 
store that '. 

Mr. Washburn. There is no way known of storing nitric acid ex- 
cept in aluminum vessels, or by mixing it with practically an equal 
quantity of sulphuric acid, and that is extraordinarily expensive, in- 
volving millions of dollars. 

Senator Xorris. It reduces itself to this, that it could be stored 
for the purpose of making fertilizer, but it would not be practicable 
to store it for the purpose of making explosives? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes, sir; that is so. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. You mean, the original substance, the 
material out of which the nitric acid is made, can be stored ? 

Mr. Washburn. It can not be stored and used afterwards for 
nitric acid; it can be stored and used afterwards for fertilizers. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. I understand that you need two water 
powers sufficiently large and sufficiently well adapted, one in Wash- 
ington and one in northern Alabama, near the Tennessee line? 

Mr. Washburn. Those two sites are favorable ones. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Your suggestion with regard to this 
one to which you have referred, the Muscle Shoals, is about this, is it 
not, that it would take a $44,000,000 investment to build the dam, 
to put the lock in the river, costing two millions, to put up a plant 
for the material that the Government would need for explosives, of 
five millions, and twenty-four millions for the additional plant and 
working capital for the fertilizer? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes, sir. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Your suggestion is that private capital 
could probably be enlisted in such an enterprise with the Govern- 
ment, furnishing its own $24,000,000 for the fertilizer end and pay- 
ing 3 or 4 per cent interest on the $13,000,000 that the Government 
would spend for the dam, leaving the locks an expense to the Govern- 
ment as a contribution to navigation, and leaving the $5,000,000 
plant that is exclusivelv for nitrogen 

Mr. Washburn. Exclusively for nitric acid. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. For explosives, to the Government? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes, sir. I have mentioned 3 per cent, and J 
think that is the very limit, and not 3 or 4. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. You said 3 per cent? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes, sir. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Suppose the Government needed to 
obtain from that plant continuously, each year, that part of the nitro- 
gen which it would use for its constantly made explosives. Could 
that nitrogen be obtained in that way from the Government cheaper 
than by buying saltpeter from Chile? 

Mr. Washburn. Very much. I can give you the exact figures, if 
you want them; but I think that answers your question. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Would it be sufficiently cheaper to 
carry the interest on the 5,000.000 out of that ? That, of course, would 
depend upon the quantity used. 

Mr. Washburn. If the Government uses what I believe myself it 
probably will use each year in times of peace in the future, there 
will be a saving to the Government of $700,000 to $1,000,000 a year on 
its nitric acid. 

33410—16 3 



34 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Then that would carry the interest, a 
handsome rate of interest on the entire 7,000,000, or 2,000.000 for the 
lock and 5,000,000 for the additional plant? 

Mr. Washburn. In times of war, compared with the present mar- 
ket on nitric acid and the cost at that plant, the Government would 
-are in one year about $25,000,000. There is a fact that I think it is 
svell to emphasize. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. So your estimate is that the Govern- 
ment could aid in contributing such plant and be out nothing except 
the temporary loan of the money, if we treated it as a loan. You 
would get 3 per cent on the 13,000,000 and have more than a return 
on the 7,000,000? 
Mr. Washburn. Yes, sir. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Fifteen million pounds, or 
f.500 tons, of nitric acid is consumed by the Navy Department 
.mnually. That is in the Navy Department. The consumption of 
nitric acid by the War Department is reckoned as from 1,500 to 2,000 
tons per annum in the present estimate. However, provisions have 
been made for the purchase of six or seven thousand tons. For the 
past two years the War Department has been buying Chilean nitrate 
in advance of its present needs, anticipating a scarcity in the market 
incident to the European war. 

The Chairman. Is there no way that the Government can get at 
the production of what it needs of nitric acid without all this expendi- 
ture of $13,000,000 on locks and dams and one thing and another? 

Mr. Washburn. I do not know of any. I have been unable to 
evolve any plan whatsoever, and no informed person that I have ever 
heard discuss it has been able to. 

The Chairman. Eliminating all this fertilizer production from 
[his plan, what would the Government have to invest to provide itself 
with a sufficient amount ? 

Mr. Washburn. I think our estimate shows that simply for nitric 
acid alone about $30,000,000. 
Mr. Bankhead. For the company? 

Mr. Washburn. No ; that is for the Government ; and if the Gov- 
ernment should simply provide itself with nitric acid plants to pro- 
duce 180,000 tons and let it stand idle it would be about $30,000,000. 
The Chairman. Is there no site where water power could be pro- 
duced and followed by the production of this nitric acid in the 
United States at a much less investment than that ? 

Mr. Washburn. No ; I do not know of any. I have had engineers 
Diit and I have done a good deal of investigating myself for five 
rears. Our own consulting engineers that we had employed and 
myself have gone all around, and we know of only two places that 
are commercially available in the United States, even under the plans 
that have been suggested here, and no place that is commercially 
available in the United States compared to the advantages we would 
ive in going to Canada. 

Senator Kenyon. Do you know whether the United States has 
made any investigation or not? 

Mr. Washburn. The Government of the United States has a good 
deal of information, but all that is open to the public, and the infor- 
mation of the Government is general information, which induces the 
man who is going to make specific use of it to carry the investigation 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 35 

further, so that our investigation is right down to the final analysis— 
what we call in chemistry quantitative. 

Mr. Baxkhead. You are manufacturing nitrogen in Canada? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Bankhead. Where do you find a market for it? 

Mr. Washburn. In the United States. 

Mr. Bankhead. All of it? 

Mr. Washburn. Practically all of it. 

Mr. Bankhead. You ship it to fertilizer manufacturers? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Bankhead. A great deal of it goes south? 

Mr. Washburn. A great deal of it. 

Senator Ken yon. You have a company, have you not, ready to 
take up this work if the Government goes into this plan? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes; I am confident of that. 

Senator Kenyon. Have you got a company now, and are you not 
a member of it? 

Mr. Washburn. Oh, yes; we have a company that could carry out 
this enterprise just in the form that has been presented. 

Senator Kenyon. That company is what? 

Mr. Washburn. The American Cyanamid Co. 

Senator Kenyon. Is that in Canada ? 

Mr. Washburn. Its works are in Canada, but it is a company in- 
corporated under the laws of the State of Maine. 

Senator Kenyon. You have presented this proposition to Con- 
gress, have you not, several times as a power-plant proposition — this 
cooperation of the Government and a power company? 

Mr. Washburn. No; I have never ■ 

Senator Kenyon. As to Muscle Shoals? 

Mr. Washburn. No. I have never presented any proposition to 
the Government; I have made only suggestions, and I have never 
presented any kind of a proposition. I never made any suggestions 
that confined the matter to any particular site. 

Senator Kenton. The appropriation has been in the river and 
harbor bill, has it not, and there was a separate bill on the floor of 
the House at the last session? 

Mr. Washburn. That may be so; it is something I do not know 
about. My recollection of the water-power matter is this, if it is of 
interest to you : I have been largely interested in water powers for 
a number of years and the development of water powers, and the 
interests with which I was connected have suffered the disadvantage 
of not being able to develop water power, because they could not get 
the requisite Government permission, so I have felt that there ought 
to be some general legislation on the water-power situation. 

Senator Kenyon. You have been here helping with the Shields 
bill? 

Mr. Washburn. I have helped with the Shields bill. 

Senator Kenyon. How long have you been in Washington work- 
ing on these propositions? 

Mr. Washburn. I think I have certainly, for the last six months, 
not been in Washington any time except upon the invitation of a com- 
mittee or one of the departments in connection with anything of the 
kind. 



36 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

Senator Kenton. Have other people associated with your com- 
pany been working on the Shields bill or on this proposition ? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes; in connection with the Shields bill. 

Senator Kenton. And on this proposition, too? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes. 

Senator Kenton. Mr. Worthington? 

Mr. Washburn. Mr. Worthington has worked in connection with 
the proposed development at Muscle Shoals, primarily, as it origin- 
ally was in the interest of the Muscle Shoals Hydro-Electric Power 
Co., which owns certain rights, etc., at Muscle Shoals. 

Senator Kenton. What rights do they own there? 

Mr. Washburn. Oh, they own possibly all of the abutment sites 
at the various dam sites. 

Senator Kenton. Are you interested in that company, too? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes ; I have a stock interest in the company. Be- 
yond that I am not connected with it. 

Senator Kenton. What do you call that company? 

Mr. Washburn. That is the Alabama Power Co. 

Senator Kenton. You are also in the Muscle Shoals Hydro-Elec- 
tric Power Co., are you not? 

Mr. Washburn. No, sir; I am not connected with that. 

Senator Kenton. One of the directors? 

Mr. Washburn. I was until lately, but I have resigned from the 
directorate of the Muscle Shoals Co. 

Senator Kenton. Are you chairman of the board of directors of 
the Alabama Power Co. ? 

Mr. Washburn. I was until a short time ago, when I resigned 
from it. 

Senator Kenton. How many of these other companies are you 
connected with? The Alabama Traction, Light & Power Co.? 

Mr. Washburn. That is the parent company of the Alabama 
Power Co. 

Senator Kenton. You are a director in that? 

Mr. Washburn. I am not now; I have resigned. 

Senator Kenton. You have no connection with the Alabama 
Power Co. or the Alabama Traction, Light & Power Co. or the 
Muscle Shcals Co. When did you resign from those companies? 

Mr. Washburn. Very lately, within a fortnight. 

Senator Kenton. Since this matter has been brought up in Con- 
gress ? 

Mr. Washburn. Since this matter has been brought up in Con- 
gress; yes. 

Senator Kenton. Did you say you were connected with the Muscle 
Shoals Hydroelectric Power Co.? 

Mr. Washburn. I am not now. 

Senator Kenton. You resigned from that, too? 

Mr. Washburn. I resigned from that, too. 

Senator Kenton. The Alabama Interstate Power Co.? 

Mr. Washburn. No; I am not connected with that. 

Senator Kenton. You were a member of the board of directors of 
that a short time ago, were you not? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes, sir; it is a subsidiary company, and it may 
be that I have not resigned from it. I do not know. 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 37 

Senator Ken yon. You are connected with so many of them that 
you can not tell which you have resigned from. The Birmingham, 
Montgomery & Gulf Power Co. ; are you one of the officers in that 
company ? 

Mr. Washburn. I do not know; my secretary can answer these 
questions better than I can. 

Senator Ken yon. Do you not remember being in this power com- 
pany? 

Mr. Washburn. I am not connected with either of those companies 
at present, my secretary informs me. 

Senator Kenyon. When did you resign from the Birmingham, 
Montgomery & Gulf Power Co.? 

Mr. Washburn. That I can not say. It is one of the subsidiaries, 
and has no significance in this connection any more than the Ala- 
bama Power Co. or the Alabama Traction, Light & Power Co. 

Senator Kenyon. The Little Eiver Power Co. ; have you resigned 
from that? 

Mr. Washburn. Was I ever a director of it? If you know, 
I do not. 

Senator Kenyon. The American Cities Co.? 

Mr. Washburn. No, sir. I was a director of the company that 
controlled the American Cities Co. ; that is, the United Gas & 
Electric Co., but I resigned from it. 

Senator Kenyon. They control the electric lines pretty generally 
down in that part of the country, do they not? 

Mr. Washburn. You mean the Alabama Power Co.? 

Senator Kenyon. Yes. 

Mr. Washburn. The Alabama Power Co. is the only hydroelectric 
company of any size in the State of Alabama. 

Senator Kenyon. Is that the company that desires to make this 
arrangement with the Government for this plant? 

Mr. Washburn. No, sir ; it has nothing to do with it. 

Senator Kenyon. You feel that this is a proposition that the Gov- 
ernment is vitally interested in because of the danger of war, and 
it is a part of this preparedness that the Government should co- 
operate with private capital down there in the development of this 
plant? 

Mr. Washburn. It is the only means that I know of, without visit- 
ing a great burden upon the United States, of insuring to it a 
powder supply in case of war, and the only means, whether it is 
a matter of burden or not, that will so provide a powder supply. 

Senator Kenyon. But this will be very valuable for the hydro- 
electric development, will it not? 

Mr. Washburn. You mean, for some companies, the water-power 
companies? 

Senator Kenyon. Yes, sir; this cooperation between the Govern- 
ment and the corporation? 

Mr. Washburn. So far as I know it has no relation to it at all. 

Senaton Kenyon. No relation at all? 

Mr. Washburn. Absolutely none; I do not know of any possible 
connection between the two. This is a matter just as distinct as if 
I were interested in the manufacture of shoes in one place and the 
manufacture of salt in another. 



38 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

Senator Kenyon. Are you interested in the manufacture of fertil- 
izer, too, in the country? 

Mr. Washburn. No. 

Senator Kenyon. No connection at all? 

Mr. Washburn. No. 

Senator Kenyon. Any connection with Mr. Duke in any of the 
fertilizer operations? 

Mr. Washburn. Mr. Duke and his associates are erecting a plant 
for the manufacture of ammonium phosphate, and we have a con- 
tract with that company for supplying them with cyanamid, which 
will be converted into ammonium phosphate. 

Senator Kenyon. Are you interested in any of those companies 
of Mr. Duke's? 

Mr. Washburn. No, sir ; I have no interest in them, but I am very 
hopeful that we may enlist Mr. Duke and his associates in the de- 
velopment of this industry if we do it on a large scale. He would 
be a most valuable asset, and that is my hope. Mr. Duke has no 
stock in our company. I have no stock in any of his companies. 
He is not an officer or director in any of our companies, nor am I 
an officer or director in any of his companies. 

Senator Kenyon. Your real interest in the matter is the develop- 
ment of the water power, is it not, the hydroelectric power ? 

Mr. Washburn. No. There has been a great misunderstanding 
with regard to this whole relation of water power to the nitrogen 
industry. The nitrogen industry is separate. So far as power is 
concerned it is simply that it is used in the making of nitrogen just 
as other things are used ; we use water power and limestone and coke 
and liquid air. Power is only one of the factors; that is all. It is 
one that we use a good deal of and is very expensive, and we must 
have it cheap; and anything that I am interested in or have been 
asked to interest myself in, in connection with the nitrogen industry, 
has no relation at all to any water-power company, nor has any 
water-power company any interest in it. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. You mean, water powers that are en- 
gaged in some other product? 

Mr. Washburn. Any water-power company engaged in any other 
project or anything at all. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Interested in the water power for its 
use or in any other way? 

Mr. Washburn. It is not a water-power company. 

Senator Kenyon. What company is it, if it is not a water-power 
company that is interested in it? 

Mr. Washburn. Interested in the matter that is under discussion 
here? 

Senator Kenyon. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Washburn. The American Cyanamid Co., pure and simple. 

As you have asked the questions, I think it might be illuminating 
to you to tell you just how my various connections have grown up, 
if you would "like to know. I went South along about 1900 be- 
cause I believed that the South was on the verge of a great economic 
development. I was a little early. I closed up my various com- 
panies in the North; my father, who was associated with me, re- 
tired from business, which gave me free capital, and we closed up 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 39 

all of our undertakings in the North. I became interested in phos- 
phate and coal mining and, among other things, in water-power situa- 
tions in the South. I tried to develop those and tried to interest in 
their development American capital, which I was unable to do. A 
few associates who joined me in the matter and I were the owners 
of various water-power sites. We finally interested English capita! 
to do the thing that we could not enlist American capital to do. It 
was very natural when English capital came in to develop the water 
powers and invest, as it did, in the State of Alabama about $10,000,0' V( 
of new money, that I should establish a relationship with these 
power projects during their period of development. I was accus- 
tomed to large organizations and the handling of men, and during 
the period of construction and the taking on of business and getting 
the company well fixed on its way as a purely operating concern, i 
was president of the Alabama Pow T er Co. One of the things that 
during my earliest knowledge of Alabama most challenged my in- 
terest and my imagination was the Muscle Shoals situation. I worked 
on that project w T ith Mr. Worthington, I think, ever since December. 
1906, and I also, beginning in 1907, as I have told you, became at- 
tracted to the idea of the fixation of air nitrogen, growing out of my 
early experience in South America in the production of Chilean 
nitrates and the knowledge of the waning supply of the high-grade 
deposits, its increasing cost, and various other limitations connected 
with it. 

I have had at no time any general ownership interest in any of the 
Alabama power companies, but a very minor ownership interest, al- 
most inconsiderable, less than in almost anything that I am connected 
with ; and lately there has been no reason for any further interest in 
or connection with the power companies, so that my entire interest 
in anything that touches water power is the desire to have water 
power for the development of the air-nitrogen industry. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. I want to make a statement 
right here in connection with this 

Senator Gronna. May I ask just one question before you make 
that statement? 

Suppose the so-called Shields bill is enacted into law, and that 
independent capital wall have an opportunity of getting power. 
Would it be necessary for the Government of the United States to 
appropriate any money in order to have this product manufactured ? 
Would not private capital interest itself in the business without the 
Government going into the business? 

Mr. Washburn. It wall not, in my judgment, and I do not believe 
there is any way by which large private users under the Shields bill or 
under any other water-power bill can get water power in the United 
States for their use. 

Senator Geonna. May I ask you another question? I understood 
you to say that the Government of the United States would save 
$25,000,000 by going into this business of manufacturing nitrates 
which it must use or which it must have for its use for the Arm}" ; 
and I also understood you to say that the farmers of the United 
States are using $175,000,000 worth of fertilizer. It seems to me that 
with such a large amount as that being used, private capital ought 
to be willing to go into the business without Government aid. That 



40 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

is, that is business enough to make profit without getting capital 
from the Government, is there not ? 

Mr. Washburn. The answer to that, as I see it, and as we have 
worked it out, is that private capital will develop the nitrogen indus- 
try and the use of nitrogen in this country, but it must develop it 
under such conditions and at such places as the nitrogen can be 
produced at a minimum of cost; because no large amount of fixed 
capital thus invested is safe, except where it can produce in competi- 
tion as cheaply as or cheaper than at any other place under any 
other conditions. 

Senator Gkonna. In other words, there might be a loss as well as 
a profit in this undertaking? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes, sir. 

Senator Norris. Do you think the Muscle Shoals proposition 
would be developed under the Shields bill, for instance, that the 
Senator is speaking about? 

Mr. Washburn. No; I do not. 

Senator Wadsworth. Why not ? 

Mr. Washburn. Because the cost of development in the United 
States is too enormous for the amount of product that could be sold 
and used. 

Senator Norris. What is the object, then, of these companies? 
I do not remember whether you said it was your company, but some 
company, at least, that owned all the places, the riparian rights along 
the Muscle Shoals. What are they holding that for if it is not for 
the purpose of development? 

Mr. Washburn. The water-power company is holding that under 
the anticipation that the Government will join in the development 
of water power at the Muscle Shoals, because thereby it would aid 
navigation. 

Senator Norris. How long have they owned the land there '. 

Mr. Washburn. Since about 1912. 

Senator Norris. It is the theory of these people, I suppose, that the 
Government will make that stream navigable, and in order to do it 
they will have to have this land that they own for the purpose of 
constructing dams or for the purpose of overflowing, whatever the 
case may be, and they can sell to the Government? 

Mr. Washburn. No; hardly that. The Muscle Shoals investiga- 
tions by private interests and the investigations of the Muscle Shoals 
enterprise by various Government engineer boards reporting to 
various committees in Congress from time to time have proceeded 
upon a suggestion, if you can call it such, of the Muscle Shoals 
Hydro-Electric Power Co., which said to the Government. " Naviga- 
tion structures are needed at Muscle Shoals to complete navigation 
facilities on the Tennessee River, and we present to you a financial 
plan under which you will build those navigation structures, and we 
eventually can pay you interest on those navigation structures." 

Senator Norris. Do you know how much is invested, how much 
they have invested in these properties where you have dams? 

Mr. Washburn. I do not know ; it is not a great sum. 

Senator Norris. If it is not done for the purpose of making money 
out of it, these people will dispose of this large interest, will they, to 
the Government, should their investigation indicate that the Gov- 
ernment wants it? 



WATER POWER FOE MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 41 

Mr. Washburn. It was the anticipation of the water-power com- 
pany that they would hold those abutment sites until such period 
as they made an arrangement with the Government, and then those 
abutment sites would be turned into the whole proposition, because 
if they did not hold them, even the Government itself possibly could 
not have found a way of carrying out the enterprise. 

Senator Norris. If they did not hold them somebody else would 
hold them? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes, sir. 

Senator Norris. The Government would have had to pay for it if 
they built a dam there? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes, sir. 

Senator Norris. I do not know why they would invest their money 
in this uncertainty unless they expected to make some money out of it. 

Mr. Washburn. The water-power company did not expect to make 
money out of the land that it purchased. They expected to comply 
with the laws of the State of Alabama, which require of a water- 
power company or of anyone developing water power that before he 
shall do it he shall own the abutment sites. They made themselves 
legally competent to come before the Government and suggest to the 
Government that here was a site where a great deal of power could 
be developed, but its cost was so great that it could not be done with 
private capital, but if the Government should put the navigation 
structures there, private capital could carry it from that point on and 
pay interest to the Government on the cost of the navigation struc- 
tures 

Senator Norris. They could have done that just as well if they 
had not invested their money. 

Mr. Washburn. Oh, no. 

Senator Norris. It seems to me that it would have been in a little 
better shape, because they would have had a little direct financial 
interest of their own in it. In other words, they have an interest 
in it themselves. They want to sell to the Government the land that 
they are holding there 

Mr. Washburn. I do not think so. I have never heard such a sug- 
gestion. 

Senator Norris. How can the Government build a dam if it does 
not own the land on which it builds the dam ? 

Mr. Washburn. But the Government, under all circumstances, at 
any time, has the power of condemnation. 

Senator Norris. Oh, yes; I understand that. 

Mr. Washburn (continuing). And can condemn the land neces- 
sary, whether it be owned by a power company or an individual. 

Senator Norris. That being true, I do not see the necessity, unless 
they wanted to make the money out of the Government, to invest the 
money to buy these sites and hold them. 

Mr. Washburn. This was the necessity: Before they could come 
before the Government as a public-utility corporation, with the legal 
power of developing water power and engaging in the development 
of water power, they had to own the abutment sites. 

Senator Norris. Under the laws of Alabama? 

Mr. Washburn. Under the laws of Alabama. So it was purely a 
matter of making themselves legally competent to make a proposition 
to the Government. 



42 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

Senator Norris. You are sure that the laws of Alabama provide 
that before a company can come to the Government with that kind 
of a proposition it would have to buy and purchase the abutment 
sites? 

Senator Smith of Georgia. The riparian rights. Is not that what 
you mean ? That whoever did develop that water power had to have 
that abutting land? 

Mr. Washburn. Absolutely. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. And these people saw the place where 
it would, they believed, be beneficial to the Government to build 
dams for navigation purposes? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes, sir. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. They bought up the lands, desiring 
to be in a position, not to sell them to the Government, but when the 
Government built the dam for navigation purposes to be in a position 
to make an arrangement with the Government to us the power for 
power purposes? 

Mr. Washburn. That is the whole story. 

Senator Norris. The Government, when it wants a piece of land, 
does not, as a rule, make an arrangement with the owner of the 
land. He sells it to the Government, and the Government pays for it. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. But the Government, creating a dam, 
creates a capacity for water power, too, because if it does not go into 
the business of selling the water power it would be in a position to 
sell that power to some private company that would use it, and only 
that power company could use it that had the riparian rights. 

Senator Norris. But the Government could not build a dam in 
this abutment property unless it paid for it. If they did not own 
it, they would have to pay for it. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. But these people would be glad to give 
the privilege to the Government of building the dam. 

Senator Norris. If Alabama has that kind of a law it would be a 
curiosity, that no man can come to Congress and ask Congress to 
build a dam unless he owns the land on which the dam is going to be 
built 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Oh, that is not it. 

Senator Kenyon. Mr. Washburn says it is. 

Mr. Washburn. Yes. 

Mr. Smith of Georgia. Nobody would be in a position to say to 
the Government, " I will contribute toward the expense of building 
that" dam for any navigation purposes if you let me have the water 
power," unless they had the riparian rights. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Before we go to answer the 
roll call I have this bill coming from the House, 12766, and section 
82 reads thus : 

That to provide for the fixation of atmospheric nitrogen by the development 
of water power, or any other means necessary to supply an adequate supply 
of nitrogen, the appropriation of such sum or sums of money to construct the 
necessary plant for such purposes is hereby authorized. 

Senator Kenyon. These are the only two places, according to Mr. 
Washburn, that that could be constructed. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. I want to make this further 
statement, that I have introduced this bill for bringing out and 
determining whether or not it is feasible for the Government to go 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 43 

into this business itself for the purpose of developing this ingredient 
without any regard to any private individual or any water power, 
anywhere or any place. I have simply wanted to get the fact that 
this is feasible and can be enacted into law. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. What you are after is the question of 
making nitrogen by someone, the Government preferred, if the 
Government could do it all right. 

The Chairman. What is the desire of the committee? 

Senator Kenton. Let us have some more hearings. This is a 
very interesting subject. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. I want to ask the privilege, if 
we find it feasible, to have Dr. Norton here before the committee. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. There is one question I want to ask 
you. Suppose this dam was built; would that provide navigation 
from there on down the river? 

Mr. Washburn. With only a slight addition it would provide 
navigation from there on down the river. 

Mr. Chairman, possibly I can understand some of the difficulties 
of the committee, and it might help to clear up the situation a little 
by stating to you one other form in which the development of air 
nitrogen in the United States appealed to us. Possibly the plan 
is what you might call politically unsound. 

Private capital has two difficulties to meet in the establishment 
of this industry — the large amount of money that is required and 
the correspondingly heavy interest burden, which are peculiarly 
objectionable and difficult to an enterprise which to Americans and 
American capital is so new. . 

Let use see what the aspect would be of the Government guaran- 
teeing the company's bonds. Suppose private capital did the whole 
thing with the exception of the $5,000,000 going into the Govern- 
ment nitric-acid plant, and $2,000,000 in the locks. Suppose private 
capital put in approximately $40,000,000 and issued bonds, and 
those bonds were guaranteed by the United States Government, and 
the Government took a mortgage upon the entire outfit. The mean- 
ing of that would be that the United States Government had lent 
its credit to the establishment of the nitrogen industry, and so long 
as the bond interest is paid the United States Government would 
be at no loss and would suffer no burden. If the bond interest were 
not paid, the United States Government would come into possession 
of the property, and in operating it then would be in just the same 
position that it would be in if it invested in the beginning initially 
with $40,000,000, and proceeded on its own account to do the business. 

The aspect of the Government holding so close and seemingly fa- 
vorable relationship to a private interest may be offensive in princi- 
ple; possibly it is something that the Government could not afford 
to establish as a precedent; but I think it expresses very clearly what 
one may call the broad equities of the situation, and it would give 
the Government and the people of the country and the farming in- 
terests every single benefit that they would have if the Government 
did the thing by itself, and entirely without placing any burden upon 
the Government, and in the event of the thing not going through or 
being a success the Government would find itself where, under the 
plan of Government ownership, it would have started. 



44 WAlEE POWER FOE MAXUFACTUBE OF XFIEATES. 

The Chairman. Is not this whole agitation about the Muscle 
Shoals project primarily and is not the paramount object of it water 
power, and navigation an incider.i ! I- not that what they 

are t: _ vork this water-power plant 

Mr.* Washburn. No: in my judgment the navigation requirements 
of the Tennessee River to-day are not sufficient to bear the burden of 
the enormous cost of navigation structures at Muscle Shoals, At the 
present time navigation on the Tennessee River is extremely moder- 
ate, but it would be. if they had through navigation from the upper 
waters, much in excess of what they have at the pi me. If 

the Government could get these navigation st - there at a very 

much reduced cost, there is some point of expenditure at which the 
additional facilities for navigation provided in that way would war- 
rant the expenditure, but to warrant the expenditure of all t: 
millions and not have any return at all from the use of power, per- 
sonally. I think is wrong, and at this time it would be a L r 
travagance. I have never known anyone to project the idea 

^hoals ought to be developed purely as a navigation propo- 
n. The effort has always been to find some way in which in 
providing the necessary navigation structures the burden to the Gov- 
ernment would be reduced to a point whe: - warranted. 

Serial I would like to ask stions t the 

manufacture of nitrates by your plai I think you have 

n probably most of the figures. How much did you say you 
manufacture 

CRN. We manui -our cat 

tons. 

How much water power do you - 
crn. Pretty ck running now 

horsepower continuous 

How much have you invested there in the 
. The physical piant ha.- st us I two and a 

half million doK 

shape of a ^ ou 

have that much capit 

Mr. Washbi . and we have 

ints in experimental w _ .of 

the company and one thing and another, so that 
is close to three and a half million dollars — about - 

iir power from - her conn 

Washburn. We buy our power from the Ontario Powe: 
which is one of the large power corporations. 

- a companv which gets its power at Niagara 

Washburn. It has its plant at the I 'i*ge cliff and 

generates its power and sells it. 

Senal - r get their right i Erom the Canadian 

Mr. Washburn. They do. 

They have to pay something to the Government 
ieir rights, do tfa 
Mr. Washburn. I think the: - - tall tax. 
Senator N . the horsepower develop 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 45 

Mr. "Washburn. It is immaterial. I do not know what the condi- 
tions are. 

Senator Norris. They do not have any direct bearing on the water 
power. We have had a great deal of discussion about the payment 
of rates, and I wanted to know what they actually paid, if you know. 

Mr. Washburn. I do not know. 

Senator Norms. How long have you been operating there I 

Mr. Washburn. We began commercial operations in 1910. in 
January. 

Senator Norris. Before you went there were you looking up 
Muscle Shoals with a view of developing that, or the Coosa River? 

Mr. Washburn. No, sir; not before we went there. We started 
with a small plant at Niagara Falls with a capacity of 10,000 ton-. 
Its capacity now is 60.000. We believed it was desirable and feasible 
to increase our productive capacity, and Ave wanted to do that within 
the United State-. We endeavored to do that by the use of power 
on the Coosa Eiver. and to secure a permit from the Government to 
that end. The Alabama Power Co. was to secure the permission to 
build the power plant. They were unable to secure that permission. 

Senator Xorris. They could not get the permit? that they thought 
were sufficient? 

Mr. Washburn. The} 7 could not get any permits at all. At that 
time, as at present, the general dam act of 1910 was governing, and 
under that act if one wanted a permit he had to come to Congress 
and secure it through a special act. One bill did pass both the 
House and Senate and was vetoed by President Taft. 

Senator Norris. I understood you to say that you did not think 
there was any place in the United States where there was a water 
power that was in a practicable position to go into this business. 
If the Coosa River had these possibilities, and was practicable, and 
the Shields bill was passed, would that be one place where it could 
be commercially valuable? 

Mr. Washburn. No, sir; it would not. 

Senator Norris. As a matter of fact, you were not driven over 
into Canada because of the inability to get a proper place here, were 
you? 

Mr. Washburn. No, we were not. To provide the increased ca- 
pacity that we desired we at that time were not driven into Canada 
because of the high cost of power in the United States, but because 
it was impracticable to get such legislation as would permit us to 
do it in the United States. 

Senator Norris. Coosa River was there the same as it always was. 
Could you not do that — ■ — 

Mr. Washburn. No, sir; because conditions have very much 
chanced. At that time the power that would have been developed 
for our uses on the Coosa, the primary power, which I believed I 
could, after the establishment of it, dispose of — it was not a very 
large amount any way — at a figure which would return me as much 
as I was then paying for it. and that I could have the benefit of sec- 
ondary power to a large amount 

Senator Norris. And you were going to use that to make nitric 
acid? 

Mr. Washburx. And we would have that comparatively small de- 
velopment in the South along the Coosa; but since that time we have 



46 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

made our provisions for Canadian power which will not cost us 
over $4 a year for power, and we could not get power from the 
Coosa, I should say, for less than $18. 

Senator Norris/ The point I want to call your attention to is that 
you say, in your judgment, there is no place in the United States 
where it would be a practical proposition to develop power and 
make fertilizer. 

Mr. Washburn. Yes. 

Senator Norris. Yet, you do say that that is what you were going 
to do. 

Mr. Washburn. Under the conditions at that time. That was a 
feasible matter. These conditions no longer exist. 

Senator Norris. If the Shields bill passes, will not the conditions 
be ripe there? 

Mr. Washburn. No, sir; the Shields bill will not alter commercial 
conditions, and we could not safely place ourselves in the position 
where our power would cost us what it would cost on the Coosa for 
any considerable development ; and we have not the inducement to 
do it, because power and investment conditions which I hoped at 
that time to transform into a comparatively cheap situation no 
longer exist. There were special conditions which at that time made 
it feasible for us to make a development on the Coosa. They no 
longer exist. 

Senator Kenyon. What was that time that you spoke of? Did 
you refer to the year? 

Mr. Washburn. I think it was 1912. 

Senator Norris. Nobody has developed the power; the power is 
there just the same, is it not? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kenyon. Did you not make an address on the subject in 
1913 before the National Conservation Congress? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes. 

Senator Kenyon. And you discussed the Coosa River proposition 
then, that Senator Norris is asking you about, in that address? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes; I discussed the Coosa River situation, and 
all of the conditions which surrounded it. 

Senator Kenyon. You said, did you not, substantially, in your 
address, that the Alabama Power Co. proposed to erect a dam across 
the Coosa River in Alabama, where the power was to be generated 
for the manufacture of cyanamid, a contract having been made by 
the power company with the cyanamid interests, providing for the 
use of all companies capable of developing it at Lock 18, and also an 
additional amount to be generated on a neighboring project? Do 
you remember discussing that in your address? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kenyon. Could you tell us what the contract was between 
the power company and the cynamid interests? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes, sir. That contract provided that we should 
pay for absolutely continuous power $18 a horsepower. 

Senator Kenyon. That plant and a dam were to be erected solely 
by private capital, without any aid from the United States, were 
they not? 

Mr. Washburn. That is correct. 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 47 

Senator Kenyon. You set forth in the address that its purpose was 
to produce an agricultural fertilizer, did you not '. 

Mr. Washburn. I judge so; it is a fact, anyway. 

Senator Kenyon. It was a good address, all right. And nothing 
was asked at all from the United States in that plan, was there? 

Mr. Washburn. Nothing. 

Senator Kenyon. Why is there not just as much reason for asking- 
aid from the United States in the Coosa Eiver plan a- in the Muscle 
Shoals plan? 

Mr. Washburn. Because the whole situation that applies to the 
conduct of the nitrogen business and the successful carrying out of a 
large industry has changed. At that time the capital that was to be 
supplied for this development was to come from the same people 
who were supporting the power enterprise, and it was the only way 
at that experimental stage of the nitrogen company in which it 
seemed possible to secure the capital. Therefore a price for power 
was considered which would leave us a small profit — a much smaller 
profit — upon a limited capacity; but that was like taking a small 
part of your production — say one-third of it or a quarter of it — and 
enjoying very little profit, or much less profit than you would ordi- 
narily enjoy. But that did not affect the great problem of our 
future development, or of the two-thirds or remaining three-quarters 
of our business. There were special conditions there that we were 
under, and there were also special conditions under which I antici- 
pated that I would be able to take that same power and dispose of it 
in a more favorable market and supply ourselves with secondary 
power, of which there would have been a considerable quantity, with 
both of those developments on the Coosa River. 

Senator Kenyon. But you think the Government could not erect 
its own plant now on the Coosa Eiver ? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes; the Government could erect a plant on the 
Coosa Eiver, but the Coosa Eiver is expensive of development, and 
at any particular power site there is not a great deal to be had; 
and the primary power, which is the all-year-round power, on the 
Coosa is very low. 

Senator Kenton. I asked you awhile ago about this question be- 
ing up in Congress before — of the development of this water power 
on the Tennessee Eiver by the Muscle Shoals Hydroelectric Power 
Co. I ask you now if you did not propose a plan yourself, or 
through you as president of that company, some years ago to Con- 
gress ? 

Mr. Washburn. That is quite right; and that is the plan that in 
the most general way I tried to describe earlier in this hearing. 

Senator Kenyon. That plan was examined by a board of engi- 
neers ? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes, sir; by more than one. 

Senator Kenyon. What ever came of that? 

Mr. Washburn. It was favorably reported upon by the final 
board of review, and it has ended right there. That was a plan to 
accomplish the very thing that Senator Gore was asking about, 
namely, means for providing navigation structures at Muscle Shoals 
without burdening the United States Government beyond the point 
where those structures were valuable or worthv as navigation struc- 



48 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

tines. The very proposition that you now refer to had that object in 
view. 

Senator Ken yon. Nothing was said about the development of 
nitrogen in that proposition? 

]\Ir. Washburn. No. 

Senator Kenyon. This nitrogen proposition had never been 
thought of in connection with Muscle Shoals until the war question 
arose? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes; it had been thought of. I have never per- 
sonally thought it was feasible for private capital to develop or 
assist in the development of power at Muscle Shoals and then sell 
that, power to a nitrogen industry. It has been discussed, but I 
have never seen our way clear to do that because it would cost us 
more to do that than it would to do something else. 

Senator Kenyon. Another proposition as to Muscle Shoals was 
submitted to Congress or to the board of engineers through Mr. 
J. W. Worthington, was it not? You are familiar with that, are you 
not? 

Mr. W t ashburn. Mr. Worthington became president of the 
Muscle Shoals Hydro-Electric Power Co. and succeeded me, and 
these consultations and negotiations, if you can call them such, were 
continued under Mr Worthington's guidance, accompanied by va- 
rious statements to the board and some to Congress. 

Senator Kenyon. You were familiar with Mr. Worthington's 
movements in the matter, were you not ? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes; in a general way. 

Senator Kenyon. You and he were interested in many com- 
panies- 



Mr. Washeurn. No; we were interested in a single company 
which had various subsidiary companies — by the way, those com- 
panies regarding which you asked me a while ago, from which I 
resigned, their charters were all merged into the Alabama Power 
Co., of which the parent company is the Alabama Traction, Light 
& Power Co. 

Senator Kenyon. That proposal to the United States engineer- 
ing board with relation to Muscle Shoals was on December 10, 
1913, signed by Mr. Worthington as president. Were you familiar 
with that proposal? 

Mr. Washburn. I do not identify it by date, but I presume I 
was, because I was familiar with practically all propositions that 
were made. 

Senator Kenyon. There was nothing said about a nitrogen propo- 
sition there, was there? 

Mr. Washburn. I imagine not. 

Senator Kenyon. Is it not the truth that the Muscle Shoals propo- 
sition has been before Congress in rivers and harbors bills, also as 
an independent proposition, and has been defeated either two or 
three times, and that the project now, the project in which you are 
interested, is to take advantage of the nitrogen feature in order to 
get the development of Muscle Shoals for the hydroelectric power? 
Is not that the real thing that is being tried to be done? 

Mr. Washburn. No. 

Senator Kenyon. Is there not a large lobby here in Washington 
at this time attempting to do that verytfving? 



WATER POWER FOB MANUFACTUBE OF NITEATES. 49 

Mr. Washburn. It has no such relationship, directly or indi- 
rectly, and I hope that you will continue your questions, and this 
committee generally, until that question is answered satisfactorily. 

Senator Kenyon. I hope we can. 

Mr. Washburn. And the nitrogen end of it, in its relation to 
Muscle Shoals, grows out of just one thing, and nothing else, which 
is that Muscle Shoals is a favorable site for the production of air 
nitrogen. 

Senator Kenton. Nitrogen was never included in any of these 
proposals that have been made to the Board of Engineers for the 
Government until after the defeat of the Muscle Shoals proposition 
and this war question arose, was it? 

Mr. Washburn. I do not know that the Muscle Shoals proposition 
was ever defeated. I can not recall it ever got to a point beyond an 
attempt on the part of the Government representatives and of pri- 
vate capital to arrange some project by which private capital might 
have the opportunity of developing water power and the Govern- 
ment could get its navigation structures, and at a cost 

Senator Kenyon. Did you 

Mr. Washburn. Just a moment. The proposition made by pri- 
vate capital at that point was to have the Government provide navi- 
gation structures without cost to the Government, eventually to 
return to the Government not only the interest, but eventually the 
total cost of those structures. 

Senator Kenyon. Did you or those you represent attempt to have 
an appropriation placed in the rivers and harbors bill in the House 
for the development of the Muscle Shoals proposition ? 

Mr. Washburn. No; I have no knowledge of anything of that 
kind and no relationship to it. I can not recall that I have heard 
a suspicion of it. 

Senator Kenyon. You were here during the debate and progress 
of the Shields bill, were you not? 

Mr. Washburn. I have been here for a day or a few hours at 
various times, I think, but not after the Shields bill was put on the 
floor. 

Senator Kenyon. Mr. Worthington was here, was he not? 

Mr. Washburn. Mr. Worthington has been here. 

Senator Kenyon. Was a fund raised down in the neighborhood 
of Muscle Shoals to maintain a lobby here for the Shields bill? 

Mr. Washburn. No; if there was, I do not know of it. There is 
an association known as the Tennessee River Improvement Asso- 
ciation that has, I should say, a very natural interest in the develop- 
ment of the Muscle Shoals water power, because the development 
of the Muscle Shoals water power means the development of the 
central South on a scale that industrially would equal anything of 
that kind in the United States. The people of that whole section, 
the whole State, and the South generally feel an interest in it. 

Senator Kenyon. Who else has been here during the pendency 
of the Shields bill and during the time this proposition was before 
the House Military Committee as to the nitrate proposition? 

Mr. Washburn. That I can not answer. 

The whole water-power interests in the United States are ex- 
tremely insistent upon legislation by which the development of 

33410—16 4 



50 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

water powers in this country may go forward, and I know various 
gentlemen who are interested in it and representatives of various 
interests, and as a rule they approve the Shields bill and are work- 
ing for its adoption and its passage, but so far as I am concerned I 
have no interest in the Shields bill beyond the interest that during 
the time I was connected with water powers in having some kind 
of a bill by which water power could be developed in this country. 

Senator Ken yon. In order that it may appear logically in the 
record, I want to ask you this — I covered it in a general way before 
our adjournment : 

You are now president of the American Cyanamid Co.; you are, 
or have been up to within recent days, a director of the Alabama 
Traction, Light & Power Co. ; chairman of the board of directors of 
the Alabama Power Co. ; vice president of the Muscle Shoals Hydro- 
electric Power Co.; vice president of Anniston Electric & Gas Co.; 
and a director of the Alabama Interstate Power Co., the Birming- 
ham, Montgomery & Gulf Power Co., the Little River Power Co., 
and one other. That is correct, is it not ? 

Mr. Washburn. That is correct. 

Senator Ken yon. And these companies practically control all of 
the water power in the State of Alabama, do they not? 

Mr. Washburn. Most of those companies are nonexistent. 

Senator Ken yon. Just the parent company exists; the children 
have been abandoned? 

Mr. Washburn. The company in the State of Alabama is the 
Alabama Power Co. The Alabama Traction. Light & Power Co. 
(Ltd.) is a Canadian corporation. 

Senator Ken yon. Mr. James Mitchell, of New York, and Law- 
rence MacFarlane, Senator, were directors of the Cyanamid Co. 
with you, were they not? 

Mr. Washburn. Mr. Mitchell is still a director. I think Mr. Mac- 
Farlane is not. 

Senator Ken yon. You are also a director of the United Gas & 
Electric Corporation, are you not? 

Mr. Washburn. I was; I resigned recently. 

Senator Kenyon. They owned the lighting and railway properties 
at many places, including Birmingham, Ala., Houston, Tex.. Nash- 
ville, Tenn., Little Rock, Ark., Memphis, Tenn., and New Orleans, 
La., do they not? 

Mr. Washburn. They own the stock in the company which is 
largely interested or controls the Birmingham Co. 

Senator Kenyon. Are you associated with Mr. Duke in the Cyana- 
mid Co.? 

Mr. Washburn. No. 

Senator Kenyon. Or in the cyanamid manufacture anvwhere in 
the United States? 

Mr. Washburn. No; only to the extent that Mr. Duke has been 
interested in this question of the production of fertilizer and attempt- 
ing to engage in it for some time, and has organized a company for 
the manufacture of ammonium phosphate and has made a contract 
with the Cyanamid Co. for the necessary cyanamid to that end. 

Senator Kenyon. And this company controls the Ammo-Phos- 
phate Co., of New York, do they not? 

Mr. Washburn. They have nothing to do with it. 



WATEE POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 51 

Senator Ken yon. And the Amalgamated Phosphate Co.? 

Mr. Washburn. No. 

Senator Kenyon. And the Virginia Chemical Co.? 

Mr. Washburn. Nothing to do with that. 

Senator Kenyon. Nothing to do with those companies? 

Mr. Washburn. Nothing to do with those companies. 

Senator Kenyon. Do they have any of those patents? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes — only one of those because the Ammo-Phos 
Corporation operates for the manufacture of their product under our 
ammo-phos patents, or will do so. 

Senator Kenyon. And those companies practically control the 
fertilizer and cottonseed oil business of the territory east of the Mis- 
sissippi River, do they not? 

Mr. Washburn. The Ammo-Phos controls nothing. It has not a 
plant, and has never done a dollar's worth of business, and is an 
ordinary manufacturing undertaking which proposes to manufacture 
a new fertilizing material of a very extraordinary value, and to that 
end they have made the purchase of a mine of phosphate rock in 
Florida! That is the Amalgamated Phosphate Co.; and associated 
with Mr. Duke, because of its original ownership of this phosphate 
mine, are certain of those connected with the Virginia-Carolina 
Chemical Co. 

Senator Kenyon. They also control water-power interests in North, 
and South Carolina, do they not? 

Mr. Washburn. Mr. Duke is largely interested in the development 
of power in the Carolina*. 

Senator Kenyon. Mr. Worthington, who von say has been here, 
is a director of the American Cyanamid Co., is he not? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes. 

Senator Kenyon. And the vice president and director of the Ala- 
bama Power Co. ? 

Mr. Washburn. No. 

Senator Kenyon. Is he connected with it? 

Mr. Washburn. No; not at all. 

Senator Kenyon. Is he president of the Muscle Shoals Hydro- 
Electric Power Co.? 

Mr. Washburn. He is; yes. 

Senator Kenyon. And director of the Alabama Interstate Power 
Co.? 

Mr. Washburn. That does not any longer exist; that is my recol- 
lection of it. I think that is one of the companies whose charters 
were abandoned. 

Senator Kenyan. Under the laws of what State is the Virginia- 
Carolina Chemical Co. organized; do you know? Have you anything 
to 'do with that company? 

Mr. Washburn. No; nothing to do with it. I do not recall. If I 
ever knew, I do not remember. 

Senator Kenyon. You are connected with that company? 

Mr. Washburn. No; I am not connected with it and know nothing 
of it. 

Senator Kenyon. Are you connected with the Southern Power Co. 
in any way? 

Mr. Washburn. Not in any way at all. 

Senator Kenyon. T think' that is all 1 want to ask. 



52 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

The Chairman. Mr. Washburn, I will ask you one other question. 
How many companies have been engaged in the manufacture of com- 
mercial nitrogen for fertilizers? 

Mr. Washburn. You mean in this country? 

The Chairman. In the United States; yes. 

Mr. Washburn. Only one ; that is our own company, for the manu- 
facture of the nitrogen product. 

The Chairman. I thought you said Mr. Duke had a company. 

Mr. Washburn. Mr. Duke has organized a company, which is to 
use our patents for the manufacture of ammonium phosphate. That 
is the only company that uses any of our patents outside of our- 
selves — well, I might say that the du Pouts used one of our patents 
in the manufacture of ammonia from cyanamid. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. This ammonium phosphate is 
a process that you hold the patent on — the combination of those two? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. They just pay you a royalty for the 
use of your patents? 

Mr. W t ashburn. Equivalent to that; they pay us a fixed sum. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. For the use of your patents? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Just as anybody else would use your 
patents and pay you for the use of them? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes, sir. 

Senator Wadsworth. Mr. Washburn, how long ago did you say 
you were in consultation with the Army engineers ? 

Mr. Washburn. Six months ago. 

Senator Wadsworth. You came upon their invitation? 

Mr. Washburn. I came upon their invitation. 

It would possibly be of some satisfaction to the committee, as well 
as tend to clear up something for me to say — it has not occurred to 
me to do so until now\ but it is perfectly evident in everything be- 
have considered here — that there was no purpose, no idea of using 
any part of this power which the Government should provide for the 
nitrogen industry for anything except the local use of it, and there- 
fore, it follows inevitably that no water-power company would have 
any interest in 

Senator Smith of Georgia. The nitrogen '. 

Mr. Washburn. The nitrogen, or if the Government wanted 
electric steel, for that is the method by which the armor steel is 
made, not only by the Krupps in Germany, but by the Creusot 
Works in France. The power, if any were available, could go into 
that purpose; but there is no part of the power that could go to 
a water-power company or be distributed. In fact, there is not % any 
there to be spared. We want every bit there is, at Dam No. 2. in 
any event, if that should be the chosen site. 

Senator Kexyox. How long will it take to develop that power 
at Muscle Shoals ? 

Mr. Washburn. It will take, to complete and get the thing all in 
working order, about four years. 

Senator Kenyon. My idea was whether or not it would help us 
very much on this proposition if we got into w T ar within four years ? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes; it would, for this reason: That it would be 
practicable to provide about half of the requirements in 18 months. 



WATER POWEK FOR MANUFACTURE OE NITRATES. 53 

either by the use of an initial steam plant, which we could make use 
of afterwards as a stand-by during: the low water period, when we 
should require more power, or by the purchase of power from the 
surrounding power companies, of which there would be three, which 
in the event of war could extend their lines and get to that point; 
so it is an 18 months proposition. 

Senator Norris. You could not get anything quicker than 10 
months? I ask that, because in one of the leading articles on pre- 
paredness, and one of the books that has been written, and which 
received an immense circulation and a great deal of newspaper 
comment, has us whipped by the 1st of April. 1916. So, unless you 
could develop your process there within the next 10 days it would 
not be of any value to save us. 

Senator Wadsworth. Mr. Washburn, have you talked over with 
the officers of the War Department this same proposition you talked 
over with us? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes, sir. 

Senator Wadsworth. Is there any material difference in your 
proposal to them and what you have made here? 

. Mr. Washburn. I think there is none. We have considered a 
great many different plans, but thev have all the same basic prin- 
ciple, and. since the original suggestion, which I was most attached 
to, that of having the Government guarantee the bonds and take a 
mortgage on the property, was early abandoned, since that time 
they have all turned upon the proposition of the Government fur- 
nishing power, as a power producer, and private capital furnishing 
the rest. 

Senator Wadsworth. Furnishing the •factory? 

Mr. Washburn. Furnishing the factory. 

Senator Norris. With what Government officials did you consult? 

Mr. Washburn. Chiefly with Gen. Crozier. I discussed the mat- 
ter in the Agricultural Department, and, as you know, with two of 
the committees. 

Senator Wadswoktit. With whom in the Agricultural Depart- 
ment? 

Mr. Washburn. I had two interviews with Secretary Houston, 
and he brought to the first interview Dr. Whitney and three of his 
associates. 

Senator Wadsworth. Did you discuss the engineering problems 
with any of the Army engineers? 

Mr. Washburn. In part. 

Senator Wadsworth. With the Chief of Ordnance? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes. 

Senator Wadsworth. In part, you say? 

Mr. Washburn. In part. The engineering features, so far as they 
apply to the development of power at Muscle Shoals, are thoroughly 
weir known. I do not think that I ever discussed with the War 
Department any particular power site, We discussed the fact that 
Muscle Shoals and that of Priest Rapids, on the Columbia River, 
were available, but most of our discussion was turned upon the cost 
and the practicability of providing this nitric acid. 

Senator Wadsworth. Who besides yourself helped to make the 
estimates of this cost of the entire installation? 

Mr. Washburn. No one, except our staff of engineers. 



54 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

Senator Wadsworth. Of your company? 

Mr. Washburn. Of my company. 

Senator Wadsworth. Are yon at liberty to say whether any of the 
officials of the Government with whom you have consulted approved 
of your proposal '. 

Mr. Washburn. I think I am at liberty to say anything I know. 
My impression is that they are favorably disposed toward it, and 
their expressions have been to that end, but nothing that would 
commit them to the proposition. 

Senator Wadsworth. That is, in both departments? 

Mr. Washburn. That is true of the War Department. There has 
been no expression from the Agricultural Department. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions by any Senator? 
[After a pause.] If not, you may be excused. 

Mr. Washburn. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen. T thank you. 

The Chairman. We are very glad to have had you here, Mr. 
Washburn. 

Is there anyone else who desires to be heard on this subject? 

STATEMENT OF MR. MILLARD F. BOWEN, OF BUFFALO, N. Y. 

The Chairman. State your name, place of residence, and business. 

Mr. Bowen. My name is Millard F. Bowen, and my residence Buf- 
falo, N. Y. ; by profession I am a lawyer. My work for several years 
has been in connection with the organization of the Erie & Ontario 
Sanitary Canal, which is a proposed company legally incorporated 
under the laws of the State of New York, to build a canal from Lake 
Erie to Lake Ontario, for a number of purposes, among others the 
generation of power. It is called the Sanitary Canal because it is 
copied after, in a measure, the Chicago Sanitary Canal, which turned 
the Chicago River backward. As a sanitary canal, we would drain 
into our canal all of the storm waters and sewers of Lackawanna and 
Buffalo, the two Tonawandas, and all the adjacent towns. Lockport, 
and even Niagara Falls. 

The full drop betw-een Lake Erie and Lake Ontario is 327 feet. 
My attention was called to this after an industrial proposition years 
ago by the fact that the Niagara Falls Power Co., the pioneer, uses 
only 136 feet of this 327 feet. By constructing this canal that would 
take care of all of the sewers, we can so construct it so as to utilize 
813 of the 327 feet of fall, thereby getting an efficiency with every 
cubic foot of water that we would use of 2.3 times as much as the 
efficiency of the Niagara Falls Power Co., and that would enable us 
to get a larger income with the same amount of water. 

We have asked the War Department for 6,000 cubic feet, which is 
the smallest amount of water used by any of the power companies in 
Niagara Falls; and. with this 6,000 cubic feet Ave could generate 
190,000 horsepower electrically, by using it over several times, having 
several power houses, by the same water passing through each one in 
succession. 

The company is only in its promotion state, as far as capital is 
concerned, although we at first, before we began the engineering 
features of the companj^, made a contract for the necessary capi- 
tal — $30,000,000 — to be available at the time the permit of the Gov- 
ernment would be granted for the use of the water. 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 55 

111 1910 the treaty with Canada was promulgated, in which the 
contracting nations pledged themselves to stop the pollution of the 
international waters, and the clause which, in article 4, relates to 
that states [reading] : 

It is further agreed that the waters herein defined as boundary waters and 
waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the 
injury of health or property on the other. 

Article 5 of the same treaty provides, first, that Canada shall have 
the use of 36,000 cubic feet of water per second for power purposes, 
whereas the United States is given for power purposes only 20,000 
cubic feet. That is by reason of the fact that the greater volume of 
water flows on the Canadian side of the river ; but for other purposes 
there is a further amount over the 20,000 that is available, because the 
last clause of article 5 says [reading] : 

The prohibitions of this article shall not apply to the diversion of water for 
sanitary or domestic purposes, or for the service of canals for the purposes of 
navigation. 

This canal, being for sanitary purposes, and also for navigation, as 
far as what is called the " escarpment " at Lockport, not for ships, 
but for barges, it comes under both provisions of that clause of 
article 5. Furthermore, the treaty seems to have been drawn largely 
in view of the various uses that this water could be put to. 

In article 8 it says [reading] : 

The following order of precedence shall be observed among the various uses 
enumerated hereinafter for these waters, and no use shall be permitted which 
tends materially to conflict with or restrain any other use which is given 
preference over it in this order of precedence : 

(1) Uses for domestic and sanitary purposes. 

(2) Uses for navigation, including the service of canals for i lie purposes of 
navigation. 

(3) Uses for power and for irrigation purposes. 

The foregoing provisions shall not apply to or disturb any existing uses of 
boundary waters on either side of the boundary. 

So there is a complete case made out in the treaty providing that 
a reasonable amount for sanitation and navigation can be granted 
for these other purposes, and 6,000 cubic feet is, according to the 
scientists, a reasonable amount for such purposes. 

So this matter was brought up several years ago, first, under Mr. 
Alexander, in the Rivers and Harbors Committee, and when the 
following Congress came in it was transferred to the Foreign Affairs 
Committee of the House, and is there still, and it is a long-drawn-out 
matter to get it settled. There does not seem to be any reason why it 
should not be settled. There would surely result from the develop- 
ment of these plans not only the use for pure water for 600,000 
people, but the Government also would receive the use of free 
harbors, one at each end of the canal, and there are periodical yearly 
floods in that neighborhood, and this would stop all of the floods. 

The Chairman. How long would this canal be? 

Mr. Bowen. Forty- two miles from lake to lake. And then the 
barge canal terminals and lake-level maintenance, all of these, from 
an engineering point of view, are vouched for by one of the greatest 
engineers in the country, who has often been called in for consulta- 
tion by the Government. Mr. Isham Randolph, of Chicago, who is 
our chief consulting engineer, and his reports are available. 



56 WATEB POWEB FOB MANUFACTUBE OF NITRATES. 

Senator Norris. About what size would the canal be. the ex- 
cavation? 

Mr. Bowen. It starts in only 18 feet deep by 60 feet in width, at 
one entrance. There are two entrances, one at Lackawanna — per- 
haps you can follow the little map there [indicating in pamphlet], 
and the other entrance through the present Erie Canal, which has a 
larger cross section; and at the lower end it would be 21 feet deep, 
because you notice [indicating] there are two branches there, and 
they meet and form a larger volume at the lower end, toward Lake 
Ontario, but it would be large enough. 

Senator Norris. The one branch would run around the east side 
of Buffalo? 

Mr. Bowen. Yes. 

Senator Norris. And the other would start on the west side of 
Buffalo? 

Mr. Bowen. Yes; so as to make the drainage and stoppage of 
pollution complete. 

Senator Norris. How far would it be from the Canadian line? 

Mr. Bowen. The creek down which it goes from Lockport to 
Olcott is called " Eighteen-Mile Creek," because it is 18 miles from 
the Niagara River. So, the power houses would all be on that creek, 
18 miles away from the boundary line. 

Senator Norris. It would not be used for anything except power 
purposes ? 

Mr. Bowen. And the drainage — yes, the right of way will give 
us, we expect, an income from other purposes, that is, industrial 
purposes. Our company is organized with the idea of carrying on 
manufacturing and warehousing. 

Senator Norris. How many dams would there be ? 

Mr. Bowen. There will oniy be two dams, but the principal power 
house, having the greatest fall, will be fed through penstocks, not a 
dam, the penstocks running from what is called the " escarpment," 
which is the same as the Niagara Falls itself, at Lockport. 

The proposition that it has appeared to me might be feasible in 
this connection to interest the Government, aside from this public 
work that would be done, is that we would have 190,000 horsepower. 
We would not ask the Government for any money for the develop- 
ment. We could very readily, as Mr. Washburn has explained, since 
it takes 30,000 horsepower for 600,000 tons of cyanamid or nitric 
acid — I do not know just exactly how he terms that 

Senator Gronna. I think he said 60,000. 

The Chairman. Sixty thousand is his annual output. 

Mr. Bowen. Three times that would be 180,000, which is the total 
amount which he says the Government would need in war times. 
For 60,000 it takes 27,000 horsepower, and three times that would be 
81,000 horsepower, which would be less than half of the total amount 
of our development. 

Now, it would be, I think, reasonable to place in our contract for 
the sale of power, and further use of the power in our own factories, 
a clause that in time of need by the Government that that amount 
should be available for the Government. 

Mr. Washburn has said also that it takes for the development of 
60,000 tons, $2,500,000, and three times that would be $7,500,000. 



WATER POWEK FOE MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 57 

If that should be the total cost for a plant to give the full capacity 
for Government use it would represent the full investment that 
the Government would have in any event to put into it, because we 
would then only charge the Government regular rates for the power 
when they used it. 

That is entirely new to me, but it has come out in the testimony 
to-day. I have never thought of such a proposition, except that I 
have talked with Dr. Norton about this whole proposition, and you 
will notice that Dr. Norton is one of my indorsers and speaks about 
it very highly. There is his letter there [indicating pamphlet], and 
I think he will vouch for all the details of this plan, and not only 
will he, but you will notice 

Senator Smith of Georgia. What will be the cost of digging the 
canal ? 

Mr. Bowen. The full cost of the digging and the equipment will 
be within $30,000,000. The present capital of the canal, for the 
initial promotion expense, is simply $100,000, part of which has 
been issued, partly for cash and partly for services, and none of the 
stock of the company has been put upon the market or sold for any 
purpose except for enough cash to keep the expenses going, and the 
expenses even — it is rather remarkable that such a proposition has 
been so good that all of the engineering expenses have been paid, 
the engineers themselves cheerfully taking our stock on the prob- 
ability of this being put through as a paying concern, and therefore 
it has been the most economical promotion probably that has ever 
been put through; but in regard to the application for the permit, 
there is a stumbling block. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. You do not own the rights of way \ 

Mr. Bowen. We do not need to buy anything. It is all farm land. 
Until we get our permit and issue our bonds — we do not issue any 
bonds or securities until we get the permit. 

The stumbling block is simply this: Under this treaty the Presi- 
dent asked the Attorney General what his powers were. The Attor- 
ney General made a written opinion, in which he said that the Presi- 
dent has the power under this, which is the supreme law of the land, 
to carry out its provisions, irrespective of any act of Congress. But, 
under that opinion of the Attorney General given to the President, 
when I asked the Secretary of War whether he would act under that 
opinion, he said as long as the matter had been placed before a com- 
mittee of Congress that he would not feel justified in proceeding 
until Congress disposed of the matter. 

At the last session of Congress a }^ear ago, Congress reported this, 
what is called the Cline bill, from the Foreign Affairs Committee 
for passage, but in the rush of the adjournment clean-up it was lost, 
and the same bill has been introduced and is now before the Foreign 
Affairs Committee, and they are simply wating now before reporting 
it again, because they have been requested by the Niagara Falls Co. 
to come to the frontier and examine for themselves all of these con- 
ditions surrounding the permits before they report a bill. 

The existing power companies have no rights except as tenants by 
sufferance. The Niagara Falls Power Co. has always had 8,600 cubic 
feet, and the Schoellkopf Co. 6,500 cubic feet. I understand from 
some source that that 8,600 cubic feet has been increased temporarily, 



58 WATER POWEB FOB MANUFACTUBE OF XTTBATES. 

at least, without any written permit, to 10,000 cubic feet, to take care 
of the peak load, as it is called, for the Niagara Falls Power Co., so 
that they are probably using- 10,000 cubic feet now, and that would 
be 10,000 cubic feet for the Schoellkpof Co., if the Government sees 
fit to grant it, and still leave under the other clause of the treaty 
provision to make this 190,000 horsepower from the 6,000 feet; and, 
as I sajr, at the rate of development of efficiency, 2.3 times as great 
as the efficiency generated by the Niagara Falls Power Co. 

I have also had to appear under these provisions of the treaty, 
before the International Joint Commission, and they have not made 
a report in regard to their recommendations. The matter was re- 
ferred to them by both Governments for their recommendations, not 
for any order, but simply that their engineers should examine into 
the subject and stop the pollution of international waters, and make 
such recommendations as their engineers should see fit to make in 
regard to the topic of pollution: but they have no power. In fact, 
irrespective of the International Joint Commission, the treaty gives 
the rights to the officers of this Government to make this grant, irre- 
spective of the other articles of the treaty. Article ."> gives this 
country the absolute right to make this grant and the other two 
grants for the companies at Niagara Falls. 

On the Canadian side of the Falls there is a greater development 
than on our side: but it seems that on their side they will soon be 
stopping their power in Canada, and not allow the export of power 
to this country, as it is now being exported, showing all the more 
need why this development should proceed. 

Dr. Norton the other day, in talking about the time that this 
would take in the matter of development, thought that by the use 
of the most modern powerful machinery we should be able to do it in 
a year. "Oh," I said. "Dr. Norton, no; it is utterly impossible to 
do such a great work in a year; but working night and day, three 
shifts, with the most powerful machinery, might do it in 18 months." 

Senator Smith of Georgia. It would take you a good while to 
get your rights of way to start with. You would have to litigate for 
a large number of them. You would have to get the power of con- 
demnation. 

Mr. Bowex. We have got that power already. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. In your charter? 

Mr. Bowex. Yes; we have. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. You would have to litigate all of 
them. 

Mr. Bowex. I do not think so. We are a very reasonable and a 
very hopeful people. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. They would all be mighty reasonable. 

Senator Kexvox. The bonds might be given to them as the bonds 
are given to the engineers. 

Mr. Bowex. Some have offered to take our bonds in exchange for 
their property. They are so anxious to get a return. It is almost 
vacant and useless land as it is. Following the streams as it does, 
much of it overflows. From an engineering point of view it is a 
perfect development, and the streams that now flow into Lake Erie 
carry the wash water of the streams. All of this filth, from the 



WATER POWEB FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 59 

cities along the way, will be turned into this canal, and, then, we 
follow the gorge down below Lockport — that is a natural outlet. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Your idea, in coming before 
this committee in reference to this bill, is for the Government to 
• cooperate in the development of that power! 1 

Mr. Bowen. Not in the development of the power, only in the use 
of it, except to this extent — that is. to build this nitrate plant, if 
you choose, upon our right of way. 

Senator Norris. You mean that the company would develop the 
power and sell it to the Government \ 

Mr. Bowen. Yes; as you need it. 

Senator Ken yon. Would not that be a dangerous location for 
one of these plants in case of war? 

Mr. Bowen. It is 18 miles away. Well, A. P. Townsend, who is 
interested at Niagara Falls — interested in the Hooker Electrolytic 
Co. and others — said that this was an ideal place, because not only 
is Niagara Falls a center for great chemical industries, but it was 
so far away from the Falls that the risk of the location of the 
chemical plants on the border would be done away with. That is 
an idea that I got in conversation with Mr. Townsend. who is 
thoroughly familiar with all of the conditions th 

I want to make this plainer, if there is any question regarding 
it. I have the reports of the engineers, and all of the details of the 
sun eys, etc. 

The Chairman. There has been no engineer of the Government 
that has made a survey, I suppose? 

Mr. Bowen. Oh. no: we have only called upon our own engi- 
neers — taking largely the Government surveys that have heretofore 
been made for various purposes. 

The Chairman. Does any Senator desire to ask any further 
questions '. 

Senator Gronna. Have you any idea at what rale the company 
could sell the power \ 

Mr. Bowen. The average rate that we have estimated for our in- 
come and sinking fund and overhead charges and everything is an 
average of $20. That would enable us to make a better rate for 
part of it. 

Senator Wads worth. Twenty dollars a horsepower? 

Mr. Bowen. Yes; for 24 hours" service. 

Senator Gronna. It is not the intention of your company, then. 
to build these nitrogen plants, but simply to sell the power; that is 
really your desire? 

Mr. Bowen. It is so new to me that that is the only thing I have 
thought of to-day while listening. I came here without any pre- 
conception at all, simply because I saw in the paper you were going 
to have a meeting on this subject, and I was interested to let you 
know that this is one of the squarest deals probably that has ever been 
put up to the Government in all of its details, and you will notice 
there in that pamphlet the names of such men as Maj. Gen. William 
C. Gorgas. Dr. Wiley. Mr. Nowell. and others who have been con- 
nected with the Government for years, who indorse it -from its en- 
gineering and sanitary standpoints. 



60 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

Senator Gronna. But you are reasonably sure that 190,000 horse- 
power could be furnished? 
Mr. Bowex. Yes, sir. 
I thank you for your consideration. 
The Chairman. And we are very glad to have heard you. 

STATEMENT OF MR. R. F. BOWER, REPRESENTING FARMERS' 
NATIONAL UNION AND NATIONAL GRANGE, CAMPBELL, VA 

Mr. Bower. I would like to be heard, but I do believe this com- 
mittee has had pretty nearly enough discussion of the nitrogen ques- 
tion this afternoon, and if it could be possible I would prefer much 
that we have a full meeting of the committee some other time and 
take up this question. I want to present it from the agricultural 
standpoint. You have heard from the scientists and the experts 
and the manufacturers, and we believe this is an agricultural com- 
mittee, and you know very well that the farmers' organizations that 
I represent — the Farmers' National Union and the National Grange — 
have not enforced the preparedness proposition, and we want this 
nitrogen question considered like Senator Smith has considered it, 
from the agricultural standpoint, and the benefits that will result 
to American agriculture and to the farmers. 

Senator Gronna. As one of the members of the committee, I shall 
be very glad to be here and hear you. 

Senator Norris. Have you in mind any particular power develop- 
ment ? 

Mr. Bower. The farmers' organizations passed a resolution here in 
Washington — the National Grange board of directors and the board 
of directors of the Farmers' National Union in joint conference. It 
names no locality, it names no process; we are not interested in any 
locality or process, provided the locality and process is selected that 
will produce fertilizer in the most economical way of any considered. 

Senator Norris. You favor the production of the fertilizer by the 
Government direct, do you? 

Mr. Bower. I would, Senator Norris, if I thought it was feasible 
and a practicable plan to do that, and that it would be worked out 
and Congress would adopt it. 

I think that the opposition to Government ownership and the Gov- 
ernment going into business of that kind, in addition to the opposi- 
tion of establishing a nitrogen plant of any kind, would be so great 
that such a plan could not be developed. 

Senator Norris. You believe in the Government going into part- 
nership with the private parties? 

Mr. Bower. It depends upon what the restrictions upon the co- 
operators are. I think if the Government should make a cooperative 
enterprise of that kind undoubtedly a provision could be provided 
by the Government, at least, to see that the price should not be 
monopolistic. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. But you would be in favor of 
the Government doing this alone if it can be done as proposed by this 
bill, without, any cooperation or coordination or any other arrange- 
ment with anybody else except the Government? 

Mr. Bower. If the Government can do it and produce the fer- 
tilizer as cheaply as it can be produced under the cooperative plan, 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 61 

I certainly would, and I think the farmers of the United States would 
absolutely indorse me in that. 

The Chairman. What concrete plan have you in mind? 

Mr. Bower. We have no special concrete plan. We farmers are 
not hydroelectrical chemists or experts, nor are Ave engineers. Our 
proposition, as we thought it might best be figured out* would be to 
leave that to engineers and the experts. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. You want the Government to take an 
interest in producing cheaper nitrogen? 

Mr. Bower. That is one point we insist upon, if possible. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. You feel the nitrogen ought to be pro- 
duced, and if it is such a big enterprise that private citizens won't go 
into it and develop it, you farmers ought to take hold? 

Mr. Bower. Absolutely. And in addition to that we fear, under 
the conditions of the nitrogen fixation processes, that we will just 
jump from the hands of the Chilean monopoly to the hands of 
another monopoly if the Government does not take some hand in 
this and furnish a plant and thereby get a controlling interest in the 
industry, or do it entirely. 

There is no question about the supply of nitrogen. There is no 
question about the extent of the Chilean nitrate business. Other 
beds have been discovered farther inland, of course, and more ex- 
pensive for development, but the world's supply is there for genera- 
tions to come. The production of nitrogen is a question of economic 
interest to the farmer, and his ability to use it — that is the essence 
of the nitrogen question, the cost of it, not the supply of it to the 
farmers. 

Senator Groxna. Your chief interest is in the cost? 

Mr. Bower. Our chief interest is in the cost, absolutely. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Of course, if we should be involved in 
a war and be cut off from Chile, that would be a different proposition. 

Mr. Bower. We are not anxious for war by any means, but we will 
leave that to gentlemen that have those things under consideration. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. I came across this reference by 
Dr. Norton in a communication he sent me from the department, that 
they had made no improvement in the methods of gathering this 
Chilean nitrate or transporting it, for the reason they had no trans- 
portation. 

Mr. Bower. Absolutely; there is no question about that. 

Senator Norris. There has been no incentive to improve the 
methods. 

The Chairman. There is a big export duty, too. 

Mr. Bower. That is just the point I wanted to bring out. 

(Thereupon, at 4.55 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned, to meet 
Friday, March 17, 1916, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.) 



WITHDRAWAL OF WATER-POWER SITES AND CONSTRUCTION OF 
WATER-POWER PLANTS FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 



FRIDAY, MARCH 17, 1916. 



United States Senate, 
Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, 

Washington. D. C. 

The committee met at 10.50 o'clock a. m., pursuant to adjournment. 

Present: Senators Gore (chairman), Smith of South Carolina, 
Smith of Georgia. Gronna, Kenyon, Wadsworth, and Johnson of 
South Dakota. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, at the time of adjournment yesterday 
we were listening to Mr. Bower. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I have brought 
this morning Dr. Norton, who is so busy engaged in the department 
that I thought it Avould be best to hear him this morning, and I want 
to state that Dr. Norton is thoroughly familiar with all of the details 
of this, and I would be glad for him now to address the committee. 

The Chairman. That will be agreeable to you, Mr. Bower? 

Mr. Bower. Yes, sir. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS H. NORTON, PH.D., SC.D., BUREAU OF 
FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC COMMERCE, WASHINGTON, D. C. 

The Chairman. Doctor, we would be very glad to hear what you 
have to say in regard to the fixation of nitrogen or any related sub- 
jects. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Might I suggest to the doctor 
that the points we want to bring out and stress are, first, the available 
power in this country for this purpose; next, whether it is practi- 
cable; and, third, and most important of all, the question of the Gov- 
ernment going into this water power simply and alone, without any 
complications with anybody else. We want to discuss those phases. 

Dr. Norton. Mr. Chairman, I will state in the beginning that I 
have been for four years intensely interested in this whole matter. 
Perhaps some of you are familiar with my publication on the " Utili- 
zation of Atmospheric Nitrogen.'* 

When we come to study the sources of available power for this 
purpose we have practically two to consider: First, and most im- 
portant, is the water power of the country. That is the chief source 
of power, now at least, for the utilization of atmospheric nitrogen 

63 



64 WATEB POWER FOE MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

on the other side of the ocean, and also to the very limited extent in 
which the manufacture is now carried on in Canada, immediately 
across the border from Niagara Falls. The possession of cheap 
water power has hitherto been regarded as almost the only condition 
for creating this industry. We must, however, bear in mind, as you 
will find by referring to my report on the subject, in the closing 
chapter, that the necessary power can be generated at a very low 
expense by utilizing the enormous piles — the mountains, as we might 
term them — of waste coal in the immediate vicinity of our great coal 
mines, notably, in western Pennsylvania and in certain regions in 
the South. That is a source that has not yet been considered to the 
extent which it practically deserves. 

But for the moment w T e need to consider only the available water 
powers, and you will find those practically falling into three geo- 
graphical districts. We have in our southern Atlantic States, the 
southern part of the Appalachian Range, down along through North 
Carolina, touching South Carolina. Tennessee, and Georgia, a num- 
ber of water powers, which in the aggregate command the attention 
of all interested in this question. The water powers available in 
Georgia, at Tallulah Falls, have now been entirely preempted, I 
understand. I was informed a few days ago by a hydraulic engineer 
who has investigated this whole subject in the southern Alleghenies 
that one interest controls, largely in North Carolina and Tennessee, 
a sum total of about 200,000 horsepower. 

Senator Ken yon. What is that interest, Doctor? 

Dr. Norton. That was stated to me as being practically under the 
personal control of Mr. James B. Duke. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Yes, sir. 

Dr. Norton. This I am simply mentioning as a statement made to 
me by a hydraulic engineer connected with the works in Georgia. I 
have not been able to verify it yet from personal investigation. 

Then, we have in the northwest, and to some extent throughout the 
Rocky Mountain section, a fairly large amount of water power. I 
have had my attention called within the past 10 days to several of 
these sources. Gentlemen, who came across from the Pacific coast to 
consult with me, plan utilization of these powers more particularly 
for certain phases of chemical industry. Now, for example, I have 
in mind one water power in the immediate vicinity of Seattle. The 
late mayor of Tacoma came over to see me two weeks ago in regard 
to that. There is a water power of 15,000 horsepower not yet used 
for any purpose 

The Chairman. Excuse me a minute. I have to go to another 
committee meeting. 

(Thereupon Senator Smith of South Carolina took the chair.) 

Dr. Norton (resuming). Which ought to be put to proper use. 

Senator Johnson of South Dakota. May I ask what, in your opin- 
ion, is the minimum power that could be practically used for this 
work? 

Dr. Norton. You can start in with any amount. You can start 
with 5,000, 10,000, 15,000, 20,000, or 30,000 horsepower. Less than 
10,000 horsepower is economically not very advantageous. The in- 
dustry requires to be mounted upon a large scale in order to produce 
the highest economic results. 



WATEK POWEE FOP, MANUFACTURE OF XITEATES. 65 

Senator S^iitii of South Carolina. What, in your opinion, would 
be the lowest horsepower concentrated in a single plant ? 

Senator Johnson of South Dakota. That is what I want. 

Dr. Norton. I should, from my observation in Euorpe, especially 
in Scandinavia, say that we ought not to start any individual plant 
with less than 30,000 horsepower. I should put that as about the 
minimum figure. 

Senator Johnson of South Dakota. How many places in the 
United States do you know of, Doctor, that could develop about that 
amount of horsepower ? 

Dr. Norton. As I was just about to remark to you, another water 
power up in Washington was brought to my attention a few days 
ago of 60,000 horsepower, which is now OAvned or rather controlled 
by the Great Northern Railroad. I am not familiar with the exact 
conditions. They are utilizing only 1,000 or 2,000 horsepower, in 
order to hold it, but there is about 60,000 horsepower available at 
one point. There are other water powers scattered around in the 
Yellowstone region. We have quite an amount of water power avail- 
able down in the Yosemite region. 

Then, apart from the southern and southeastern development, and 
the northwestern, to which I have referred, certain developments 
have taken place in the Mississippi Valley — the Keokuk Dam is 
probably familiar to you. I think there is something like 200,000 
horsepower there. But there are a number of such isolated points. 

Finally, we come to our greatest national asset, which is on our 
frontier, that is at Niagara Falls. The sum total of the water power 
susceptible of utilization there resulting from the drop between the 
level of Lake Erie and the level of Lake Ontario is about seven and 
one-half million horsepower. That represents. I think, roughly 
about one-half of the total horsepower of the country. 

Here comes into consideration an enormous water power of which 
one-half would naturally belong to Canada and one-half to us. By 
international arrangement we are allowed 20.000 feet per second 
and Canada is allowed to take 36,000. according to the treaty of 
May, 1910. That involves a total utilization of about 25 per cent 
of the available water supply of the Falls. 

There have been very ingenious, sensible, and economical propo- 
sitions brought up lately for diverting, under the existing treaty ar- 
rangements, a certain amount of that water, taken from the imme- 
diate neighborhood of the city of Buffalo and brought over by a very 
short canal to the city of Lockport, where I passed much time in 
early days, and am thoroughly familiar with the Avhole topography 
of the country. I have been interested in propositions for diverting, 
partly for sanitary use, and largely for economical uses, under exist- 
ing treaty regulations, a fairly large amount of the water of Lake 
Erie at that point. That is eminently worthy of the consideration of 
your committee, as it would, as far as my knowledge goes, supply 
much more than is needed to start profitably and economically a very 
large plant. 

Practically, gentlemen, I feel, from various standpoints, that the 
country should have, in a rough way, three such installations. 

The largest amount of nitrogen in the combined form, required 
for agricultural purposes, is probably needed in our South Atlantic 

33410— pt 1—16 5 



66 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

and especially in our Gulf Stales. You will find in the cotton fields 
and in the tobacco fields of the South that there is relatively a 
greater need of nitrogen, and I might say in this connection of 
potash, than in any other section of the country. From the purely 
agricultural standpoint, there ought to be a center for the produc- 
tion of nitrates from the air at such a location that the agricultural 
needs of the South should be met with a minimum of expense, as far 
as transportation is concerned. 

We have to consider, then, the needs of our Pacific coast, and there 
is, as I have mentioned, a large available amount of water power not 
yet utilized. That could supply the economic needs, the needs for 
the varied industries of the Pacific coast as they exist at present, 
and as they will be prospectively rapidly developed, and also its 
agricultural needs. 

The consumption of nitric acid itself is growing very rapidly. 
There is probably no other article on the lists for freight rates, 
submitted to our Interstate Commerce Commission, which involves 
greater difficulty for the transporting agency and a higher rate than 
that of nitric acid. In Germany, for many years, the Government 
has not allowed nitric acid to be transported on a train which is 
used for other purposes. They use special trains for that purpose, 
such as are assigned for explosives. 

In considering, therefore, the needs of the western half of our 
Nation for nitric acid, an important factor in manufacturing, there 
should be a center of production there which would be free from the 
handicap of high rates of transportation for haulage from one side 
of the continent to the other. 

When you consider, however, the chief uses of nitric acid and of the 
nitrates, outside of use for fertilizers, they are centralized chiefly in our 
Northeast. The southern half of New England, a great share of 
New York State, a large portion of New Jersey, almost the whole of 
Pennsylvania, the territory reaching through Ohio toward Chicago 
and down to Baltimore in our adjoining State come into considera- 
tion. In this region nine-tenths of the nitric acid manufactured in 
the United States is consumed in the arts. Here are the chief 
centers for the production of the high explosives required in ordi- 
nary peaceful times for our quarrying, for our blasting, and for use 
in other purposes, such as building roads, etc. There is a large con- 
sumption of nitric acid in connection with the manufacture of dye- 
stuffs and the multiplicity of various chemicals required in a host of 
different trades and industries. 

If I were to sum up the demands of this country for the consump- 
tion of nitrogen in a combined form, especially in the form of nitric 
acid, for its industries, and notably for the manufacture of explosives, 
both for peaceful uses and for the defense of the Nation, for the 
normal provision of defense for the future, I would state that we 
ought to have three plants. One should be located in the South for 
the manufacture of nitrates— to a slight extent nitric acid. The use 
as fertilizer should be the dominating factor. In such a plant the 
whole equipment could inside of 24 hours be shifted off to the manu- 
facture of nitric acid for use in the preparation of explosives, if our 
liberty was ever menaced. Normally it would manufacture nitrates 
for the use of the agricultural section constituting the Gulf and South 
Atlantic States. 



WATER POWER FOE MANUFACTURE OE NITRATES. 67 

Another plant in the Northwest could supply the needs of the 
western section of our country, nitrates for agriculture, nitric acid 
for its rapidly growing industries. 

The largest plant should be located in the Northeast to meet nine- 
tenths of the domestic demand for nitric acid used in the arts, and to 
meet the needs of the largely diversified agriculture extending from 
the Mississippi to the Atlantic and north of what you might call 
Mason and Dixon's line in ordinary parlance. Ultimately we should 
have a center immediately in the Mississippi Valley. The manufac- 
turing interests of this section are steadily developing. Their needs 
must be provided for in the future. Unfortunately we have no easy 
source of power now available in the center of that section. If we 
analyze it geographically, I would state that, with regard to the pres- 
ent consumption of nitric acid and the materials used in that connec- 
tion, with regard to safety from possible interruption in time of war, 
such a location, geographically, leaving out of consideration the ques- 
tion of available water power, ought to be about Pittsburgh. If 
you go a little farther east, as far as Philadelphia or New Jersey, 
which geographically would be the center of consumption of nitric 
acid and of the nitrates, we are getting a little too near to the seaboard. 
I feel as if Pittsburgh was, from an industrial standpoint and from 
the geographical standpoint, the ideal location for the Northeast. 
We are, however, without available water power in the immediate 
neighborhood of Pittsburgh unless we consider the possibilities of the 
Parker plant, 50 miles to the northeast of that city. 

In order to secure available water power, we must go from 150 
to 200 miles to Niagara. Here arises the international question, 
whether the possibility of conflict with our neighbors to the north 
is of such a nature that it would preclude the establishment of a 
plant for the fixation of atmospheric nitrogen in the immediate 
propinquity of our northern border. Personally, I do not antici- 
pate any clanger from that source. I have lived 10 years of my life 
in Canada, and I do not think that danger will ever arise from that 
quarter. It is, however, a question that will have to be considered. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Is it not a scientific question, Doctor? 

Dr. Norton. It is not a scientific question. It is purely of a strate- 
gic nature. 

Senator Johnson of South Dakota. The location of those plants 
which you mention should largely be considered from the stand- 
point of transportation, also, should they not? 

Dr. Norton. Yes, sir. I have felt that for the Northeast, the con- 
sumption of nitric acid and of the nitrates, both for industrial pur- 
poses and for agricultural purposes, would be centered somewhere 
around Philadelphia or New Jersey. That would take in the con- 
sumption in New England, the consumption reaching south to Mary- 
land and Virginia, and reaching out westward to Ohio. We have 
no available water power in the immediate neighborhood of the 
Atlantic. 

I think that, apart from scientific or technical questions, when 
we consider the production on the basis of its being a potential 
source of supply for national defense, the location should be 100 
miles or 150 miles from the seaboard. I feel convinced that the 
clangers which would come to any such plant, would result largely 
from a rapid invasion, which might take place anywhere along our 
seaboard. Fortunately, in the southern part of the country the 



68 WATER POWEB FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

water powers are some little way back from the seaboard, in the 
Appalachian range. I do not think there would be any danger for 
a prospective plant either in Tennessee. Georgia, Alabama, or North 
Carolina. I think that is far enough off to protect us from any sud- 
den raid. 

If we should have such a plant located in western Pennsylvania, 
say. which is a wonderfully convenient location, from the purely 
industrial standpoint, and the standpoint of distribution, it would 
n< t be a difficult thing to draw the power from Niagara. I have 
already alluded to a plan for creating a suuply of power near 
Buffalo capable of execution at very slight expense. The current 
could be transported as easily to the neighborhood of Pittsburgh 
as we now transport electric current in California. It is trans- 
ported there 130 miles with perfect ease. There is no technical 
difficulty now to transport it 200 or 300 miles. The current gener- 
ated at Niagara is now used as far east as Syracuse. It is expected 
that within a few years the electric current generated at Niagara 
will be transported direct to the city of New York, to be used in the 
electrification of the subway and other methods of transportation. 
The distance in this case is double that between Niagara and Pitts- 
burgh. 

In case of invasion — we will suppose an invasion from the Cana- 
dian border — it will be a very easy thing to protect simply a trans- 
mitting line, and in case of sudden interruptions to reconstruct it 
in a few hours. The main plant would, however, be so far away from 
the international border that it would practically be safe. 

I should state, therefore, that the leading plant, the central plant, 
with reference to the industrial evolution of the country, ought to be 
in western Pennsylvania. 

Another plant, almost equal in extent, but aiming dominantly, en- 
tirely almost, to meet the agricultural needs of the South, ought to 
be located somewhere near the point wdiere Georgia, North Carolina, 
and Tennessee meet. A third plant should be sufficiently removed 
from the Pacific littoral in our Northwest. 

This is the way I have sized it up — a little roughly, perhaps. Geo- 
graphically and from a strategic standpoint, I think that these are 
the lines along which we ought to carry out our studies. 

Your chairman has brought up a third point, perhaps funda- 
mentally the most important in this whole connection. It is, Should 
this Government embark in the manufacture on a large scale of 
nitrogenous products? Is it a branch of manufacture which could 
legitimatel}' come within the purview of the United States Govern- 
ment? Should it not better be confined to private initiative? 

We have within the past few years embarked in phases of activity 
at Panama, and now up in Alaska, which during the nineteenth cen- 
tury would have been utterly foreign to the ordinary ideas of the 
functions of the Government. If we face this nitrogen problem I can 
not recall any better arguments that could be brought in favor of 
organized industrial activity on the part of our Government than 
those arguments which were so forcibly and abundantly presented to 
the Senate and the House of Representatives a dozen years ago, when 
the question was agitated of building the Panama Canal. Almost 
every argument adduced at that time bears directly on this nitrogen 
question. The matter of national defense predominated, but ques- 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 69 

{ions of transportation and of the industrial independence of our 
country were forcibly presented. 

At present we are largely dependent, along with the rest of the 
world, on a single source of nitrates in the South Pacific. We are 
paying tribute, in common with the rest of the world, to the extent 
of two-thirds of the running expenses of the Republic of Chile; that 
is, we are contributing our share of the total sum. Two-thirds of 
the running expenses of that country are defrayed out of the export 
duty on Chile saltpeter. In the event of war the same arguments 
which were brought up for the necessity of a canal through the 
Isthmus of Panama to connect our western coast with our eastern 
coast, to allow of easy transfer of a fleet from the Pacific to the 
Atlantic and vice versa, may be applied with equal force to this chief 
source of combined nitrogen for the agricultural and industrial needs 
of this country. I feel, therefore, that all the arguments, irrespective 
of political considerations, that were presented a few years ago in 
connection with the project for constructing the Panama ('anal, 
would bear with equal emphasis and force on the question now under 
discussion by this committee. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Doctor, in that connection, may I ask 
a question? You say it bears with " equal force." Suppose we were 
at war with a nation with a large fleet; does it not bear with greater 
force? How would we get along without nitrogen and continue to 
make powder and explosives? 

Dr. Norton. That is a fundamental question. Were we at war 
with a nation that had the naval command of the Pacific, dependent 
as we now are. our supply of nitrates would be cut off to the last 
pound. 

If we were at war with a nation which had the naval command of 
the Atlantic, we could count on a possible supply, brought from Chile 
to San Francisco, and then shipped by rail, at considerable expense, 
across the country to the eastern centers. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. But what I wanted you to tell us is 
this: Suppose we were cut off from Chile. What could we do if we 
were cut off? 

Dr. Norton. A fortnight ago I published details on this, point. 
Perhaps telepathically I had an idea that your committee might 
need the information. We would be in exactly the position in which 
Germany would be in to-day, if four years ago she had not developed 
methods of winning the nitrogen from the air, which enable her to 
supply the entire needs of her army when fighting for life and death. 
and also to partly meet the legitimate demands of agriculture. If 
five years ago Germany had entered upon the present war. she would 
probably have been forced ere this to sue for peace. 

Senator Wadsw t orth. Doctor, did the German Government four 
years ago go into the business of manufacturing combined nitrogen ( 

Dr. Norton. The German Government did not at first go into the 
manufacture of combined nitrogen. It encouraged in every way. as 
I have outlined in a recent report on the subject, the development 
and the perfection of two or three simple processes, which were 
brought to such a stage 12 months before the war broke out. that ( Ger- 
many is now able to manufacture its high explosives without a pound 
of Chile saltpeter. I am credibly informed, by chemical friends in 
Germany, that the German authorities would have hesitated to have 
embarked in any military effort on an immense scale, when thev would 



7t) WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

run such a risk of seeing vitally essential supplies cut off. had it not 
been for this rapid evolution in the processes for the fixation of at- 
mospheric nitrogen, which took place within the past three or four 
years. 

Germany has next to no water power — a mere fraction of what 
we have in this country. The Germans can utilize, however, their 
waste coal, and they can utilize the few forms of water power at 
their command. But they have developed another process which has 
been tried in no other country, by which the nitrogen of the air is 
extracted directly, without dependence upon cheap water power. 
They have developed a method, described in the second chapter of my 
recent report [indicating pamphlet] by which nitrogen is changed 
into the form of ammonia. That ammonia, at very slight expense, 
and with great ease, can be oxidized, in contact with ordinary air, 
into nitric acid. 

The Chairman. That is a very recent process, is it not? 

Dr. Norton. I was at Mannheim on the Rhine, three years ago. 
when the works were under construction. A friend had charge of the 
construction of this first factory for manufacturing ammonia from 
the nitrogen of the air. Simultaneously a method was developed by 
a leading chemist, Prof. Ostwald, for oxidizing this ammonia into 
nitric acid. Neither of these operations is based upon the use of 
water power. They have not been attempted in any other country, 
but they do put in the power of Germany, without the use of a 
single waterfall, the ability to make from the air which we breath 
every pound of explosives necessary to shell Verdun or an} 7 other 
point. 

That could not have taken place four years ago. 

The Chairman. Is that cheaper than the other process? 

Dr. Norton. There are, as I mentioned in this article which I 
published a few days ago, only three available processes so far as 
we know. The first is the manufacture of cyanamid, which is car- 
ried out on the Canadian side of Niagara Falls. It can be most 
advantageously carried out with water power. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. What is the difference in the 
cost, where coal is used under present conditions and where water 
power is used ? 

Dr. Norton. There you have an enormous range of expense. We 
can get waste coal now. which can be used very largely for this pur- 
pose, in the western part of Pennsylvania for 50 cents a ton. That 
depends entirely on the locality. On the Pacific coast a pretty high 
figure is quoted for coal, as you know. 

When we come to the matter of water power, there are all the 
variations between $2 for an annual horsepower in Iceland and at a 
few points in Norway; $3 for the larger plants in Norway; $4 or $5 
as you get into Sweden; $10 to $15 in the Alps of central Europe; 
and, finally, $'20 at Niagara Falls. We find all of those variations. 
In New York City there is a 'rate of $80 for the electric current de- 
rived from coal. Electric current can be used for the direct tranfor- 
mation of the air we breath into nitric acid; it can be used, however, 
advantageously only where the water power is so exceedingly cheap, 
as it is in Iceland, or as it is in the western half of Norway. 

The problem has been worked out for Niagara Falls. Were we to 
harness the whole cataract on an entirely different basis from that 
hitherto devised, the cost per horsepower would come down to about 



WATEE POWEK FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 71 

that prevalent in Norway. The cost of the installation would involve 
an annual interest charge of about $1.80 per horsepower. Then would 
come the cost of operation — the ordinary running of power houses, 
etc. That means the complete utilization of Niagara Falls, as out- 
lined in the document in the hands of 3^0111' chairman, for a certain 
portion of each day, at least. 

The smaller water powers in our country require a greater expendi- 
ture of capital relatively in order to render them available. We must 
construct dams, on a very large scale and reservoirs something like 
the Roosevelt Reservoir in our western country, in order to secure 
a supply of water during the rainy season, or during the spring, 
which could be available later in the year when there is but little 
precipitation. 

Fortunately, at Niagara Falls we have a fairly uniform amount of 
water, draining the whole area of the lakes, available at all times of 
the 3^ear. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. In spite of the comparatively 
high cost of water power between this country and Europe, yet the 
production of nitrogen for military and agricultural purposes in 
this country would make the product cheaper, even at that, than 
what we have to pay for the Chilean saltpeter, would it not ? 

Dr. Norton. It certainly would, gentlemen, because we w^ould se- 
cure the product from Niagara Falls. Practically all of the cyan- 
amid now made on the Canadian side is brought across the line, and 
is used in American agriculture. The manufacture is based upon a 
standing cost of $20 per annual horsepower. The nitrogen derived 
from the air in that way easily meets in competition Chile saltpeter. 
It holds its own; the works are being enlarged. That demonstrates 
to us, with perfect clearness, that Ave can take the nitrogen out of the 
air; we can put it into such a form that it is susceptible of utiliza- 
tion for our agriculture, and on even terms with the supplies from 
Chile. 

Furthermore, gentlemen, you must remember that the supplies of 
Chile saltpeter are limited. When I wrote this report, which is in 
your hands, it was thought that within a quarter of a century the 
supply might be exhausted at the present rate of exploitation. Fur- 
ther investigation, since my report came out. shows that probably 
that date can be very materially advanced. But it is a limited quan- 
tity. It is like a mine of copper or a lode of gold or silver in our 
West. It is topographically limited, and the day will come when 
there will not be one pound more available for use. We have got 
to face this proposition, not only for our current needs, for the needs 
of our Government, for the needs of national defense, but we have got 
to face the possibility of what will happen 20, 30, or 40 years hence 
for our agricultural interests and for our manufactures, if we do 
not have such an industry well established, moving along smoothly 
and easily, ready to engage and enlarge its scope of operations as 
the American demand increases. All that has to be taken into con- 
sideration. 

Senator Johnson of South Dakota. Does this atmospheric process 
used in Germany combine the manufacture of high explosives with 
any other products? 

Dr. Norton. No. First, I might say that the methods used in 
Scandinavia produce nitric acid directly, and that is changed into 



72 WATEB POWEE FOIt MANTJPACTUBE OF NITRATES. 

nitrate of lime. In that form it is sent out for agricultural use. 
You can, however, prepare the nitric acid without changing it into 
nitrate of lime, which is much easier to ship. It can be concentrated, 
and can also be transformed into other forms of nitrates for different 
purposes — saltpeter, for instance, to be used in making gun powder. 
When recently in Norway, studying the nitrogen plants, I found that 
they were manufacturing nitrate of ammonia, which is now used to 
a very large extent in connection with high explosives. 

The manufacture is exceedingly elastic. The main product is 
for use in agriculture. If there is a demand for nitrate of ammonia, 
for use in connection with explosives, in a few hours the production 
can be in full operation. If nitric acid itself is required, for use 
in manufacturing dynamite or guncotton, or for any other similar 
purpose, it is possible to switch the manufacture, at a day's notice, 
into those lines. It is exceedingly elastic. 

The same statement applies also to cyanamid, although not in a 
similar degree. Cyanamid has the nitrogen in the form of am- 
monia. It is ready for agricultural purposes as manufactured. If 
it is desired to manufacture nitric acid, in order to make use of it 
for high explosives, the cyanamid is treated with steam. Ammonia 
is liberated, and is transformed into nitric acid by the method de- 
veloped within the past two or three years in Germany. That means 
a certain complication, as compared with the direct transformation 
of the medium in which we live into a corrosive article like nitric 
acid. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Is this method of transform- 
ing it from the atmosphere called the " arc " process, as distinguished 
from the cyanamid process \ 

Dr. Norton. Yes. The operation is carried on in the electric arc 
at a temperature of over 3,000° C. The cyanamid method can be 
carried on at a temperature of 1.100° C. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. What is the difference in the 
cost of producing nitrogen by the two processes' 

Dr. Norton. There is not much difference. The advantage of the 
cyanamid process is that you work at a lower temperature — that is, 
as far as concerns its use for agriculture. But in the arc process you 
get your nitric acid direct for use in the arts and for use in making 
explosives. With cyanamid it is necessary to undertake several 
transformations. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. What is the new German 
process of extracting this ammonia and then converting it into 
nitrogen? Is it patented? Is it available for us at all? 

Dr. Norton. It was patented about 1909 — the method of changing 
the nitrogen of the air directly into ammonia. We are dependent on 
patent rights in that connection for a few years yet. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Would it be feasible for us to 
make any arrangement with Germany, in case we were to embark in 
this, to avail ourselves of that process? 

Dr. Norton. It will be thoroughly feasible. The patents are held 
by a corporation, not by the German Government. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Are they patented in the United 
States ? 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Have the German owners -pat- 
ented it in this countrv as well? 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 73 

Dr. Norton. Certainly. Every one of these processes is patented 
under out patent laws. The earlier cyanamid patents have already 
expired. The patents for the manufacture of nitric acid by the arc 
process will expire probably by 1920. 

We have, however, gentlemen. I might state, a distinctively Amer- 
ican process 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Doctor, by virtue of its di- 
rectnesses this new process cheaper than the other — the cyanamid? 

Dr. Norton. It is not cheaper, as far as the nitrogen is con- 
cerned. If you look at it from the agricultural standpoint, all you 
want is to secure nitrogen in a combined form to introduce into the 
soil. It is cheaper, however, from the industrial point of view. If 
you want nitrogen in the form of nitric acid for explosives and the 
like, the arc method furnishes it directly by a single operation. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. You were about to say that there was 
one distinctively American process \ 

Dr. Norton. There is one that I have alluded to in the next to the 
last paragraph of this article, published March 1. An American in 
1903 presented an application for a patent for a method of fixing the 
nitrogen in the air. That application lay dormant in our Patent 
Office until August, 1915. It took 12 years to decide that the method 
was patentable. Everybody had forgotten about it. Four or five 
years after that application was presented, Prof. Haber. the German 
who developed the method of transforming the nitrogen of the air 
into ammonia, worked out on paper mathematically, and also in his 
laboratory, the possibility of increasing the yield of nitric acid in 
the arc process, by bringing in the element of pressure — which Dr. 
Rittman, of the Bureau of Mines, has. within the past year, uti- 
lized so effectively in transforming the residues of petroleum into 
gasoline and into benzene and toluene, to make picric acid, trinitro- 
toluene, etc That was the fundamental idea of this patent applica- 
tion of 1903. 

The method has now been worked out, and I might state, while the 
results have all been communicated to me in confidence, that the 
practical, industrial and technical results are away beyond what I 
ever dreamed of as being capable of realization. I have strong hopes 
that the process may be an important factor in the situation. We 
can not consider it now, but incidentally I have mentioned it in next 
to the last paragraph in this published article. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. You spoke a moment ago as to 
the difference between the cyanamid process and the arc process. 
You mentioned that the arc process required a certain temperature 
and the cyanamid process a lower temperature. Does the one require 
greater power than the other '. 

Dr. Norton. No. We require the electric current, but you do not 
need that tremendous installation in the cyanamid process, required 
to yield the very high temperature of the arc process. It is a much 
more economical plant. The operation is like that of an express 
train. If the train is running at a certain cost for fuel at 30 miles 
an hour and you want to increase that rate to 50 miles an hour, it is 
necessary to use more than twice as much fuel. It is the same in the 
case of an ocean greyhound ; if you want to put on an extra mile per 
hour you have to use proportionately a very much greater amount of 
fuel. The same factor is involved in the differences between the 
cyanamid process and the arc process. In seeking to attain the tern- 



74 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

perature at which the oxygen and nitrogen of the air are trans- 
formed into nitric acid, we need a relatively much more powerful 
plant. That means, we must have our fundamental source of elec- 
tricity as cheap as possible. One can make cyanamid advantageously 
with electricity costing $20 a year per horsepower. The arc process 
can not compete, unless the rate falls to $3 or $4. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. So, therefore, the cyanamid 
process is really cheaper than the arc process ? 

Dr. Norton. It is cheaper from the standpoint of agriculture to 
get a product in which the nitrogen is contained ready for the use 
of the farmer. When we come to consider, however, the use of 
nitrogen in the form of nitric acid and nitrates, there, of course, you 
have the additional expense of transforming the nitrogen of the 
cyanamid into nitric acid. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Then, for agricultural pur- 
poses, Doctor, you would consider 

Dr. Norton. Nitric acid made from cyanamid might compete with 
nitric acid made by the arc process. If the power employed for the 
arc process cost $7 or $8 or $10, nitric acid might be obtained as 
cheaply from cyanamid, made with electricity costing $20 per horse- 
power. These are some of the factors entering into consideration. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. For practical purposes which 
of the two processes would you recommend under ordinary condi- 
tions for the production of fertilizer — the arc process or the cyana- 
mid process? 

Dr. Norton. That would depend entirely on the fundamental cost. 
If the cost of water power is brought down very low, the arc process 
is the most advantageous, because it is more elastic. It supplies com- 
bined nitrogen ready for use as a fertilizer, ready for use in ex- 
plosives, ready for use for industrial purposes — it is much more" 
elastic. You have to compromise here and there. The problem must 
be worked out very carefully. 

Senator Johnson of South Dakota. Can you use the arc process 
for fertilizer? 

Dr. Norton. Oh, certainly. The products of the arc process, in 
fact, serve for almost all the fertilizer used in Norway, and they are 
shipped to different parts of Europe for use as fertilizer. 

Senator Wadsworth. In what form is it shipped ? 

Dr. Norton. As I mentioned a few moments ago. in the form of 
calcium salts. Chilean nitrate is a nitrate of soda. In Norway the 
nitric acid, obtained by the arc process, is put into a vat with ordi- 
nary limestone. This yields calcium nitrate, or nitrate of lime It 
is evaporated down to dryne-s. and is shipped to any part of the 
world. 

Senator "Wadsworth. We had some testimony here yesterday to 
the effect that owing to the comparatively high cost of water power 
in the United States the arc process was impracticable for commer- 
cial uses. Have you any comment to make on that statement? 

Dr. Norton. That comes down practically to the cost of water 
power. At Niagara Falls the current cost is $20 per horsepower. I 
have myself determined, in my studies of the question, mentioned 
awhile ago. that if we can utilize the power of Niagara on a com- 
plete scale, the cost per horsepower might be a quarter of the present 
rate. 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 75 

Senator Wadswortii. When you speak of using Niagara Falls on 
a complete scale, you mean, of course, to use all the available water 
power there, on the ground that when you use it all it lessens the cost 
per horsepower ? 

Dr. Norton. Yes. 

Senator Wadswortii. But, Doctor, you would not seriously sug- 
gest to this committee that we use all the Niagara power, would you? 

Dr. Norton. I would not hesitate at all to make that suggestion. 
In this article — the Scientific American, December 4, 1915 — you 
have the idea elaborated. It affords a compromise between the sur- 
render of Niagara Falls to the lovers of scenic beauty, or to those, 
constituting a majority of our population, who believe that it is not 
economically correct to have that latent power wasted every 21 
hours. I have elaborated here the project for the entire utilization 
of Niagara Falls — 7,400,000 horsepower — during the time when we 
are asleep, for 14 hours, from 8 o'clock in the evening until 10 o'clock 
the next morning. For 10 hours the lovers of scenic beauty can view 
the Falls exactly as they probably have been for 40,000 years, as they 
have worked their course backward from Lake Ontario to the present 
point. 

In addition, I Have suggested that while the Falls are in their 
normal activity it is possible to introduce a complete set of overshot 
wheels and utilize from one side of the Falls to the other, and from 
the base of the Falls to the top, as much as possible of the available 
power, perhaps 30 or 40 per cent of the total, without any of this 
mechanical equipment being visible to those who are gazing at the 
Falls. There will be a certain amount of additional spray, more of 
the rainbows around and above the Falls, etc. The idea is a new 
concept in engineering. It has never before been attempted — this 
idea of a dam above Niagara Falls, by means of which we can switch 
off the entire volume of water, and in one minute begin to generate 
seven and a half million horsepower. It involves the utilization of 
the 45 feet of the rapids above the Falls, the 167 feet of the Falls, 
and the 100 feet of the whirlpool rapids below, making a sum total of 
312 feet of descent. That would give us an enormous power for 11 
hours every day. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. It would produce that horse- 
power during the 14 hours? 

Dr. Norton. Seven million four hundred thousand horsepower for 
14 hours, and for 10 hours we could generate half of that while the 
Falls were in their normal state of activity, by placing this simple 
construction behind the curtain of falling water. 

The Chairman. What would that installation cost? 

Dr. Norton. The estimate of the construction of the dam would 
be inside of $2,000,000. The average depth of the river for the 
three-quarters of a mile, from the American side to the Canadian 
side, is 3^ feet. There is a rock bottom. There is not the slightest 
engineering difficulty. From above this dam on both sides — it would 
naturally have to be an international matter — the water would be 
conducted 5 miles to the top of the bluff where there is a drop from 
the level of Lake Erie to that of Lake Ontario. ' There the power 
houses, etc.. would be located. The penstocks and the rock tunnels, 
as we have them at Panama in connection with the canal locks, would 
descend to the base of the escarpment overlooking Lake Ontario. 



76 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

I might state in this connection that if we take away from lovers 
of scenic beauty, for 14 hours in the day, the attractions of Niagara 
Falls, we would more than replace them. The interruption would 
largely take place when most people are asleep. We would enjoy 
the view of two of the most stupendous phenomena on the face of the 
globe. Every day would witness the birth and the death of a 
cataract. 

I think, Senator, you can imagine the sight of the Niagara gorge, 
perfectly quiet while the Falls are harnessed; then, inside of one 
minute, a plunge into activity as the billows would sweep over the 
crest; the roar would begin, the spray would rise, the rainbows 
would spring into existence, and we would view a spectacle every 
day similar to that of the Johnstown flood or the Galveston tidal 
wave. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. What would be the total cost, and 
what would be the length of time required to put that suggestion into 
operation ? 

Dr. Norton. It would not take over a year to build the dam. A 
year or two would be consumed in making the canals to connect with 
the bluff overlooking Lake Ontario. The construction of the power 
houses, etc., could go along simultaneously. I think, if an inter- 
national agreement were ever reached between this country and 
Canada, inside of two or three years Niagara Falls could be har- 
nessed completely, so that it could be either used for its scenic effect 
or devoted to the purely utilitarian interests of the two countries. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Doctor, I do not know that the 
committee have any other questions to ask, but 3^011 are so thoroughly 
familiar with the needs of our country in reference to fertilizer in- 
gredients that I would like for yon to speak on the possibilities of our 
potash development. We are as dependent on Germany for potash 
as we are upon Chile for nitrate. 

Dr. Norton. I notice on the table a copy of The American Fer- 
tilizer of March 4, containing my article, entitled " The Potash 
Famine." I might state briefly, gentlemen, however, that our whole 
agriculture depends upon three elements for its rations, its daily and 
annual rations; these are phosphoric acid, nitrogen, and potash. 
Our country produces a great abundance of phosphates, i. e., phos- 
phoric acid. We even ship them abroad. We are dependent upon 
Chile, as you all know so thoroughly, for our nitrogen supply. We 
are dependent almost exclusively upon the mines in Stassfurt, Ger- 
many, for our supply of potash. We bring over to this country an- 
nually potash, in various forms, valued at about $17,000,000. We 
are dependent on a single source, which for the moment is cut off 
from the rest of the world. 

Now, in our own country we have several sources of potash. The 
most abundant and widespread and economical of all these sources 
is in the kelp floating off the western coast of our country, all along 
the shores of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California. We 
have an annual crop which nature provides for us, worth $90,- 
000,000, as far as. the potash is concerned. It requires simply to be 
gathered, dried, and ground, and it is ready to ship to the cotton 
and tobacco fields of our Southern States. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. About what per cent of potash 
is in that form when it is dried ? 



WATER POWER TOR MANUFACTURE OF XITRAT! 77 

Dr. Norton. For every pound of dried kelp we have to drive off 
eight and a quarter pounds of water. That dried kelp contains 19 
per cent of potash. It corresponds with what is known to the 
fertilizer interests as the manure salts brought over in large amounts 
from Germany, containing 20 per cent of potash. 

As I have recently shown, we can produce that dried kelp and 
lay it down in the ports of our Gulf and South Atlantic States for 
the use of the tobacco and cotton planters, and of the host of truck 
farmers in that region, at a cost per ton of $1 or $5 less than what 
we were paying before the war for the potash of Germany. 

But, gentlemen, that is simply the potash. In addition to that, 
every ton of this dried kelp contains combined nitrogen ready for 
use for assimilation b} 7 plant life, just as valuable as Chile saltpeter 
or sulphate of ammonia or cyanamid. It contains enough of nitro- 
gen to represent in prices current before the war a value of $5.50. 
We can supply our potash at an economy of several dollars on the 
ante bellum rates that we paid to Germany. In addition, there is 
in every ton $5.50 worth of combined nitrogen, replacing so much 
Chile saltpeter, and also 75 cents worth of phosphoric acid. 

Senator Wadsworth. Doctor, has anybody developed that at all? 

Dr. Norton. That has been done on a very elementary scale — 
tentatively. The chief difficulty has been the absence of legislation 
in California, Oregon, and Washington controlling the the 3-mile 
limit along the coast in which this kelp is found. Anybody who 
plans to erect large works for the collection and drying and ship- 
ment of this kelp is uncertain what the legislatures of those States 
may do the next week or the next day in laying taxes for franchises, 
or hindering in any way the ordinary exploitation. They are com- 
pletely in the dark. There is the same absence of legislation regard- 
ing the entire coast line of Alaska and the Alaskan Islands. There 
needs to be Federal and State legislation which will enable capital 
to see its way perfectly clear to exploit on an enormous scale, com- 
mensurate with the needs of this country, this vast source of potash. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Would it not be more direct, 
on the same grounds that we are now trying to legislate, to supply 
this country with nitrogen, in view of the usage of potash almost 
pari passu with nitrogen, to solve this problem by providing proper 
legislation in writing this same measure? 

Senator Wadsworth. You mean to have the Government go into 
the business of gathering the kelp? 

Dr. Norton. I do not think the Government needs to go into the 
potash business. That is a very simple matter. It does not involve 
such elaborate machinery. It does not involve chemical processes. 
It is purely mechanical. We need only to run a submarine lawn 
mower through the water, collect the kelp, bring it to the coast, 
and dry it. 

(Thereupon, at 12.05 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned to 
meet at 10.30 o'clock a, m., Monday, March 20, 1916.) 



WITHDRAWAL OF WATER-POWER SITES AND CONSTRUCTION OF 
WATER-POWER PLANTS FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 



TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1916. 



United States Senate, 
Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, 

Washington, D. C. 
The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., pursuant to adjournment, 
Senator Thomas F. Gore presiding. 

Present: Senators Gore (chairman), Smith of South Carolina, 
Smith of Georgia, Sheppard, Shafroth, Page, and Kenyon. 

The Chairman. The committee will first hear Mr. Merrill, of the 
Forestry Service. 

STATEMENT OF MR. 0. C. MERRILL, CHIEF ENGINEER FOR- 
ESTRY SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 

The Chairman. Please state your name, Mr. Merrill. 

Mr. Merrill. O. C. Merrill, chief engineer of the Forestry Service. 

The Chairman. How long have you held that position? 

Mr. Merrill. Since 1909. 

The Chairman. We shall be glad to hear any statement you wish 
to make concerning this matter. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Mr. Merrill, the committee have 
been very anxious to get data as to the available water-power sites 
in the United States, for the purposes of this proposed legislation. 
Now, there has been some difference of opinion as to what water- 
power sites have sufficient horsepower. I wish you would state to 
the committee what knowledge you have of these sites, the possi- 
bility of their development, and where they are located. 

Mr. Merrill. My familiarity with potential, undeveloped water- 
power sites is confined practically to the Western States. I have 
been not only with the Forest Service but with private parties in 
connection with water-power sites in the West for quite a number 
of years. I assume that for the purposes of this bill it is necessary 
to have a site of considerable horsepower, and one that can be de- 
veloped at low cost. I have taken a map here that was prepared 
sometime ago by the Department of the Interior for another pur- 
pose, and have indicated by numbers in several places eight of the 
large and comparatively cheap water-power developments in the 
Western States. 

Senator Kenyon. Can you just enumerate them ? 

Mr. Merrill. The first one is the site on the Pen d' Oreille Biver, 
in Washington, about 4 miles from the international boundary in 

79 



80 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

the northeastern corner of Washington. This probably has an avail- 
able horsepower at ordinary stream discharge of about 150,000, and 
can be developed to 300,000 horsepower or more by means of storage 
farther up the stream. I do not know of my own knowledge at what 
figure this power can be developed, but I have been informed it is 
somewhere from 840 to $60 a horsepower, depending largely, of 
course, upon the amount that is developed at the site. 

The Chairman. Do you mean that that includes the construction 
of the plant, or is that after the plant is constructed '. 

Mr. Merrill. That would be the electrical end, the investment 
cost of the electrical part of the developement, dams, conduits, 
power houses, and the equipment for generating the power. 

The Chairman. Can you estimate the annual cost of that after 
the plant is installed ? 

Mr. Merrill. The two items would be the interest cost and the 
operating cost. The interest cost on, say $50 per horse power at 6 
per cent, of course, would be $3 a horsepower year. Ordinarily, the 
operating expenses are about on an equality with the interest and 
sinking-fund charges, but for a development of this character, where 
the power is probably to be used directly at the site for electrochem- 
ical purposes it is quite probable that the operating charges will be 
in less proportion than they would be in an ordinary electrical system. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. It seems to me it is important to 
get that distinction clear. In the ordinary electrical system the cost 
is in the transmission through lines and equipment at distant points. 

Mr. Merrill. That adds very largely to the investment cost in 
hydroelectric power systems. 

Another site that I have indicated here is on the Skagit River, in 
northwestern Washington, on which developments of from 60,000 to 
100,000 horsepower could be made, the difference depending on the 
amount of storage. 

Senator Kenyon. How far is that from the international line? 

Mr. Merrill. That is only a question of guesswork from the scale 
of the map. It is probably at least 100 miles. This is not as favor- 
able a site as the Pend'Oreille site. The investment cost doubtless 
would be considerably greater, on account of the longer conduits 
that need to be constructed. 

A third site which has been investigated for this purpose is a com- 
bination of power plants on the Sauk and Suiattle Rivers, also in 
Washington, where about 100,000 horsepower can be developed. I 
do not know what the probable investment cost on that system 
would be. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. How much would be developed? 

Mr. Merrill. About 100,000 horsepower. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. How far is it from the interna- 
tional boundary line? 

Mr. Merrill. That is still farther south. It is about in the middle 
of the State from north to south, about half the distance from the 
international boundary line to the Columbia River, and almost 
directly east, just a little north of east of Seattle. 

There are two other sites on the Columbia River which have very 
large power possibilities. There is the Priest Rapids site, of which 
Mr. Pierce of Seattle has had a great deal to say before different com- 
mittees of Congress and which is said to be able to develop from 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 81 

400,000 up to approximately 1,000,000 horsepower, depending on the 
height of the dams constructed and the cost of installation. 

The State of Oregon, in cooperation with the Reclamation Service, 
has investigated a site near The Dalles on the Columbia River, that 
has possibilities of about 500,000 horsepower. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Where is it located ? 

Mr. Merrill. That is located on the Columbia River between 
Washington and Oregon, about the center of the State east and west. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. And it is capable of developing 
how many horsepower? 

Mr. Merrill. About half a million horsepower. I believe they 
would have navigation in the river from there down. That is at 
Celilo Rapids, which is the lower development on the Columbia. 
Priest Rapids is farther up. This has been investigated by the State 
of Oregon in connection with the Reclamation Service. Had I known 
that I would be expected to give any information to the committee 
I could have looked up the details on that, because I have in my 
office copies of the reports that have been made on that site. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina, Have you any idea of the cost of 
horsepower at that development ? 

Mr. Merrill. I do not remember, Senator, except that it is, as I 
recall, considerably cheaper than the developments that have already 
been made. I would not want to venture even a guess at it since 
figures can be secured. 

There are two or more possibilities down in the State of California. 
On the north fork of the Feather River about the central part of the 
State there are power sites along about 20 miles of the north fork of 
the Feather River that could develop around 300,000 horsepower by 
the use of the Big Meadows Dam, which has been constructed by 
the Great Western Power Co. With a development up to that limit 
of 300,000 horsepower the cost per horsepower would probably be 
well under $100, possibly $80. 

There are sites on the upper San Joaquin River in California being 
developed now by the Pacific Light and Power Corporation. The 
ultimate development proposed there is about 250,000 horsepower, 
and they have approximately 100,000 horsepower already developed. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Now, Mr Merrill, these power 
sites you have personal knowledge of % 

Mr. Merrill. Yes; I have personal information about them; 
some of them I have actually visited, but they are sites about which 
I have secured information in connection with the regular duties of 
my position. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Would your knowledge of the 
general topography of the country, east and south as well as west, 
lead you to believe that there is available water power, whether 
owned by the Government or otherwise, to develop 50,000 horse- 
power or more ? 

Mr. Merrill. There are almost numberless sites where that can be 
done. There is one other site I have marked here, and that is at Pol- 
som, at the outlet of Flathead Lake, in Montana. That is said to be 
capable of developing from 50,000 to 200,000 horsepower, depending 
on whether the natural flow alone is utilized or whether ;i draw down 
of about 10 feet from the lake is utilized. I have not seen any figures 

33410—16 6 



82 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

of probable cost at this site, but I am informed that it is a compara- 
tively cheap development. 

There are eight sites that I have picked out 

Senator Kenyon. In four States ? 

Mr. Merrill. In four States — Washington, Oregon. California, and 
Montana. 

The Chairman. You are not familiar with those in the East and 
North? 

Mr. Merrill. I am not familiar with those in the East and North 
except by what I have read about them. The amount of available 
water power is far greater in the West than in any other section. 

(Here ensued informal discussion which the reporter was directed 
not to take.) 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Do you know anything about that plant 
that furnishes potash in the West ? 

Mr. Merrill. No, Senator; I am not familiar with that. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Who in the Agricultural Department 
would know most about that ? 

(At this point Mr. Brown, who was present in the committee room, 
made the following statement at the instance of the committee :) 

Mr. Brown. My name is Brown. I am from the Bureau of Soils, 
in charge of fertilizer investigations. You mean the plant that is 
handling the alunite deposits in Utah ? 

Senator Smith of Georgia. No; the plant on the Pacific slope that 
is supposed to contain such great quantities of potash — not a manu- 
facturing plant. 

Mr. Brown. You mean the kelp? 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Yes. 

Mr. Brown. Well, it is on the coast. There are half a dozen of 
them. The Swift Fertilizer Co. is one. The Hercules Powder Co. is 
another. The Diamond Match Co. is a third, and there are three or 
four others. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. It was about the kelp as the growing 
plant, not the manufacturing plant, that I was asking the quantity 
of the kelp and the quantity of potash that it produces. 

Mr. Brown. Well, it produces a very remarkab'e quantity of pot- 
ash — just the kelp as it comes out of the sea is run through a drier and 
ground. That stuff can be used as a fertilizer, and if it occurred on 
the Atlantic coast it would be a fine source of fertilizer as it is. It 
contains from 16 to 25 per cent of potash, but the trouble is it is so 
bulky. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. What is the balance of it? 

Mr. Brown. Organic material. It contains about 2 per cent nitro- 
gen in addition, which increases its value. 

t Senator Smith of Georgia. And the balance of the organic material 
is a good fertilizer ? 

Mr. Brown. The nitrogen is good fertilizer, and there is a certain 
amount that goes to humus and improves the physical condition of 
the soil to that extent. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. You say there are several companies 
engaged in producing potash from it ? 

Mr. Brown. Yes; they are putting in a good deal of money, but 
in our judgment they are not using the right method. They are 
drying and grinding the stuff, and the Swift Co. is now shipping 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 83 

something like 2 or 3 tons a day of this dried ground kelp to 
Chicago by freight from San Diego. As a result, when they get it to 
Chicago it is a pretty high-priced fertilizer. 

The Chairman. If it came through the canal it would come a 
good deal cheaper, would it not ? 

Mr. Brown. I do not know exactly what the freight rate is to 
Chicago by rail. 

(At this point the hearing was suspended for a few minutes to 
permit members of the committee to answer a call of the Senate.) 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Now, Mr. Merrill, you have 
given the committee all of the water-power sites that you are familiar 
with in that region that would, in your judgment, be available for the 
purpose of this bill ? 

Mr. Merrill. No; I have merely picked out eight of the sites that 
I think would probably be the cheapest and furnish a large amount 
of power. There are scores of sites that might possibly be used. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Have you given the power in each? 

Mr. Merrill. Yes; the approximate amount of power. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. And what is the largest? 

Mr. Merrill. The largest, I think, that I have here is about half 
a million. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. And that is where ? 

Mr. Merrill. That is at The Dalles, on the Columbia, between 
Oregon and Washington. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Now, Mr. Merrill, have you 
any knowledge of the fact that there are other water-power sites in 
this territory ? 

Mr. Merrill. Oh, there are other sites there; no doubt there are 
many other sites. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. What is the best site east of the Rockies ? 

Mr. Merrill. I would not be able to answer that, Senator. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. The sites you have given are west of 
the Rockies ? 

Mr. Merrill. They are west of the Rockies. I am not familiar 
with the sites down here in the South Atlantic States. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. I mean, are there any in the West east 
of the Rockies that you know of that would be large enough ? 

Mr. Merrill. I doubt that there are, without combining several 
sites together. Practically all of the large power sites in the West 
are either on the upper Missouri or on the Columbia and its tributaries 
or the Sacramento and its tributaries. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. And what about the upper Missouri? 

Mr. Merrill. There are sites on the upper Missouri. The Montana 
Power Co. has just constructed a plant that will have a development 
of about 100,000, as I recollect, at the Great Falls of the Missouri. 

Senator Page. That is the city of Great Falls in Montana ? 

Mr. Merrill. No; it is at what is known as the Great Falls, 10 
or 12 miles below the town. There is a big drop. The site nearest 
the town of Great Falls is what is called Rainbow Falls. 

Senator Page. What have you to say about the east Tennessee 
power that has been referred to in some of the previous hearings ? 

Mr. Merrill. I am not familiar with the power in the South 
Atlantic States. 



84 WATER POWER FOB MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

Senator Page. You agree with the gentleman who spoke to us 
here the other day that 300,000 is the minimum horsepower required ? 

Mr. Merrill. I could not say; I have not examined that. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. You are not an expert on the pro- 
duction of the nitrogen ? 

Mr. Merrill. No. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. You are in the Forestry Service, and 
you know these western water powers ? 

Mr. Merrill. Yes; and that is all that I wished to speak about. 

Senator Page. What did you say was the power at The Dalles? 

Mr. Merrill. Why, it is somewhere around a half a million horse- 
power, but it depends on the height of the dam that is constructed. 

Senator Page. And that is the minimum ? 

Mr. Merrill. I understand that that is the amount the engineering 
board which made the estimates reported as a development. 

Senator Page. I understand that in the manufacture of nitrogen 
we must rely upon a continuous power, and the minimum at all 
times must be the power to be taken into account. Now, when you 
say 500,000 horsepower at The Dalles, do you mean that is the mini- 
mum, the maximum, or the average? 

Mr. Merrill. I mean that would be the minimum with the height 
of dam proposed. That is my understanding. 

Senator Page. At low water ? 

Mr. Merrill. Yes; that is my understanding. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Senator Page, I would like to 
call your attention to the remark you made a moment ago to the 
effect that it had been testified here that not less than 300,000 horse- 
power should be available for the production of this nitrogen. Dr. 
Norton, the expert on this matter in the Department of Commerce, 
says that 50,000 horsepower would be the minimum. 

Senator Page. I referred to the suggestion of the president of the 
Niagara Falls Co., who said 300,000 horsepower. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. To handle the arc system — 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. As contradistinguished from the 
cyanamid system ? 

Senator Page. We have any number of powers even in New 
England where we can develop 30,000. 

The Chairman. He said he was operating with 27,000. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Do you know, in any coordinate 
department of the Government, anyone who would be familiar or 
should be familiar with all of the water powers, regardless of whether 
in a Government reservation or elsewhere in the United States ? 

Mr. Merrill. I do not know of any one individual. 

Senator Page. Would not the Geological Survey have that? 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. They indicated to me that they 
did not. I would like to exhaust this subject, but upon communi- 
cating by telephone with the various departments Dr. Merrill was 
the only one indicated to me by any of the departments who would 
have a knowledge of this matter as to the water powers of the United 
States. Now, we have developed the fact that 30,000 horsepower 
can be used in the manufacture 

Senator Sheppard. Was there not a census taken in 1910? 

Senator Smith of Georgia. My own judgment is about 100,000, 
from the testimony, unless we use the latest system. 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 85 

Senator Smith of South Carolina, Dr. Merrill has testified that, 
from his knowledge of it, that would he sufficient. What is your 
idea, Doctor? 

Mr. Merrill. It simply depends on how much you want to pro- 
duce. That is really the whole story, of course. 

The Chairman. If nobody lias ever done this we certainly ought 
to see that somebody does do it. 

Senator Sheppard. I asked the question a moment ago whether 
any census of the water powers of the United States has ever been 
taken ? 

Mr. Merrill, The Geological Survey in 1908 made an estimate of 
the potential water powers in the United. States. In 1912 the Com- 
missioner of Corporations made a revision of that, and iii the recent 
report to the Senate on electric power development in the United 
States, I made certain revisions of that report and of the Geological 
Survey report, with new figures for Idaho. That report will give you 
the latest and best information that the Government has in any de- 
partment, This report is now being printed. Part 2 will probably 
be out in two or three weeks as Semite Document No. 316 of this Con- 
gress. It is in proof sheets now. In the Part 2 that is coming out is 
a census up to three months t go of the developed water power in the 
United States. I could furnish the committee with photographic 
copies of that portion of the report relating to potential water power. 

The Chairman. I wish you would do that, 

Senator Page. Senator Smith of South Carolina., may I ask you 
what is the value per ton of this product which we are supposed to 
produce from the atmosphere, do you know how much could be made 
with 80,000 horsepower '. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. I do not know how much could 
be made with 30,000 horsepower. I know that the nitrate of soda, 
which is equivalent of this which we propose to reduce, is retailed at 
about $50 to $55 a ton. Those were ante bellum prices. 

The Chairman. Mr. Washburn said he was turning out I 0,000 tons 
a year with 27,000 horsepower. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Dr. Norton testifies that it can 
be produced for about $17 to $18 a ton. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. The price per ton at which you would 
produce it would, of course, be affected by the quantity of the pro- 
duction and the location and the other things to be used besides the 
air. You must locate with limestone easily accessible, and. coke 
easily excessible, as both of those are necessary, and the real problem 
of economical production involves horsepower and the other things 
than air that are required, to accomplish the production. 

STATEMENT OF MR. FREDERICK W. BROWN, IN CHARGE OF 
FERTILIZER INVESTIGATIONS, BUREAU OF SOILS, DEPART- 
MENT OF AGRICULTURE. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Now, Mr. Brown, what is the amount 
of potash produced by these plants now on the Pacific slope ? 

Mr. Brown. Their present production is very small. I had a 
report from a man on the coast within the last two weeks, and I 
think the total production from the plants that wore up was something 



86 WATER POWEB FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

like four or fire tons a day. That, of course, does not scratch the 
surface of the problem. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. To what do your attribute this small 
production ? 

Mr. Brown. Several of them are not actually in operation. The 
whole business is very young. It has started within the last few 
months. I think the Swifts, for instance, have gone in simply to 
preserve their brands. They have a certain number of brands that 
contain potash, and they can not get potash anywhere else, so they 
have gone to the Pacific coast, and they are producing it there at any 
cost. The Armour fertilizer Co. has gone to the alunite deposits 
in Utah. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. What is the form of that ? 

Mr. Brown. It is a rock from which potash can be secured simply 
by roasting. 

Senator Page. I believe that produces only about 8 per cent of 
potash ? 

Mr. Brown. No; I think it contains 11. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Yes; it is that and higher. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. I wish you would deal especially with 
the kelp. 

Mr. Brown. The kelp looks to me, Senator, like the most likely 
source of a potash supply sufficient to meet the needs of this country, 
both for fertilizers and for the arts. That the kelp contains potash 
there is no question; it contains it in large quantities. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. What is the limit of supply of this 
kelp? 

Mr. Brown. It is almost unlimited. There are millions of tons of 
it there. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Does it grow each season, or does it 
come down each season ? 

Mr. Brown. No. The Bureau of Soils charted the area, and it 
is almost a continuous growth extending from San Diego right on up 
the coast to Alaska and on around the peninsula. 

The Chairman. How wide is it? 

Mr. Brown. It is almost all within the 3-mile limit, Senator. It 
grows, however, in depths as great as 100 feet. It has a holdfast 
at the bottom, and it com?s up in a long streamer to the top. 

Senator Page. Is it possible to make potash from kelp as cheaply 
as it can be produced in Germany after the war closes ? 

Mr. Brown. We have never had an appropriation to conduct ex- 
periments on anything more than a laboratory scale. Our experi- 
ments on the laboratory scale would indicate that it is possible. It 
is probably true that in time the German syndicate, if they saw com- 

f>etition arising, would drop their prices. I think we would no 
onger get muriate of potash at $40 a ton as we did before the war. 
I think they could sell it considerably lower. I think very likely they 
would sell it below cost in order to put the competition out of busi- 
ness. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. What is the cost of transportation per 
ton from this point on the Pacific coast around to the eastern coast 
by water? 

Mr. Brown. Through the canal prior to the war it was $6 a ton — 
these are approximate figures. Just prior to the closing of the canal, 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 87 

however, it was nearly $12 — $1 1.75, perhaps. 1 do not know the rate 
through the canal now. The companies have all canceled their rates 
because the canal is closed. When it is reopened, the price, owing to 
the lack of available tonnage, will probably be close to $12. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Have you any knowledge as to 
the cost of production of a ton ready for shipment? I think Dr. 
Norton gave some figures, and I would like to hear yours. 

Mr. Brown. I do not know that there are any figures available, 
because it has never been produced on a commercial scale except by 
these companies that have just begun. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Do they separate the potash from the 
other material ? 

Mr. Brown. They are just grinding it and shipping it. Now, the 
better way, I think, in view of the long freight haul to the eastern 
seaboard where the potash is demanded, would be to separate it by 
some chemical process that would give the salts and ship merely that 
much bulk. 

The Chairman. Do you know whether any experiments have been 
made as to the concentration of it that way ? 

Mr. Brown. We have made experiments in our laboratories. It 
can be done. 

The Chairman. But you have no way of arriving at the cost? 

Mr. Brown. We have no way of arriving at the cost, because we 
have nothing but a laboratory. 

Senator Sheppard. Have you not an electric furnace in operation ? 

Mr. Brown. We have, over at Arlington, just started. 

Senator Sheppard. You are trying to develop phosphoric acid ? 

Mr. Brown. Yes; and nitrogenous products. But that is another 
proposition. 

Senator Sheppard. Thev are elements in fertilizer, too, are they 
not? 

Mr. Brown. Yes. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Let us finish with potash first and come 
back to that afterwards. We are trying to develop this potash 
proposition. 

Senator Sheppard. Very well. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Now, will any legislation be necessary 
to facilitate the utilization of this material in the 3-mile limit ? 

Mr. Brown. My understanding is it is in the hands of the States. 
Anybody can go now and help himself. Until the States, or the 
counties, possibly, in the absence of State legislation, adopt some, 
measures for leasing the beds there is no guarantee that private 
capital will be protected. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Do the States on the Pacific coast 
control the product in the 3-mile area or does the United States ? 

Mr. Brown. My understanding. Senator, is that the States con- 
trol it. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. That is covered by the grant, or by the 
constitutions of the States ? 

Mr. Brown. I think it is under State control. No one of the three 
States has taken action. We tried very hard to get California to do 
so this winter. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Have you any knowledge of 
what rights under the circumstances the Federal Government would 
have within that 3-mile limit? 



88 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

Mj-. Brown. I do not think there is any question but what now in 
the absence of State legislation the United States could walk right in 
and help themselves. Anybody can. As a matter of fact, these 
people are doing it. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Does it reach to the lower end of 
California ( 

Mr. Brown. It goes away on down to Lower California along the 
Mexican coast. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. And there is an ample supply, then, 
as far south as the southwestern corner of the United States? 

Mr. Brown. Yes, sir; some of the largest beds are right off San 
Diego. 

The Chairman, Do they need a great deal of fuel in converting it? 

Mr. Brown. No; not a great deal. If you dry it and grind it, it 
involves a certain expenditure of coal or fuel oil, or something of that, 
kind . 

The Chairman. They have employed oil in California i 

Mr. Brown. Yes; I think they are using oil in the driers they are 
using out there now. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Section 4 of this bill provides: 

Thai the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to lease, purchase, or acquire, by 
condemnation. gift, or devise, such lands and rights of way as may be necessary for 
the construction and operation of such plants and to take from any lands of the United 
States or to purchase or acquire by condemnation, materials and minerals necessary 
for the construction or operation of ^uch plants and for the manufacture of such 
products. 

The products referred to are the fertilizer ingredients, " nitrates 
or other products useful in the manufacture of fertilizers and muni- 
tions of war." Under the terms of this bill, then, the Government 
might erect such plants as are required to produce potash in com- 
mercial quantities 

Mr. Brown. No; not potash. I wish it did include potash. 

The Chairman. How is that? 

Mr. Brown. I think this bill does not cover the potash situation 
at all. It says "such power sites." Now, the first section limits 
it to power sites. The second section limits it to power sites in the 
public lands and such mineral sites in the public lands as contain 
limestone, phosphate, coal, or other minerals needed for the produc- 
tion of nitrates or other products as contemplated in this act. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. What sum would it take to enable the 
Secretary of Agriculture to test out this potash proposition ? 

Mr. Brown. We compiled figures which showed we could put up 
a plant on a commercial scale that would handle, I believe, 500 tons 
of wet kelp per day. That would deliver about 50 tons — I am not 
certain about the amount — of the dried kelp. It would cost about 
$150,000, Senator. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Is that all? 

Mr. Brown. If we had that we could handle 500 tons. Under- 
stand, that would not begin to supply the country. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. I am not suggesting that you supply 
the country. I am suggesting a demonstration that will cause private 
capital to go into it and supply the country. 

Mr. Brown. Exactly. That would offer us an opportunity to 
demonstrate absolutely the possibility or want of possibility. It 
might turn out that it can not be done. We think it can. 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OP NITRATES. 89 

Senator Smith of Georgia. An appropriation of $150,000 for test 
purposes, you think, would enable you to do it? Within what time? 

Mr. Brown. That is a difficult question to answer, because it is 
very hard to get delivery of machinery nowadays, especially on the 
Pacific coast. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Do you think you could do it in 12 
months ? 

Mr. Brown. I should hope we could come back with some results 
in 12 months. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. And you think a plant of that size would 
enable you to deliver 50,000 tons a day? 

Mr. Brown. No; we would handle 500 tons of the wet kelp per 
day. About one-sixth or one-seventh of that would be dried kelp. 
That would give us 70 tons of dried kelp a day. That dried kelp will 
run 25 per cent potash salts. A quarter of 70 is 18. That would 
give us 18 tons of potash salts a day. 

Senator Page. That would be about .$360 worth a day? 

Mr. Brown. That is 18 tons of KC1, and at normal prices that is 
worth $40 a ton. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. But that price of $40 is for delivery on 
this side ? 

Mr. Brown. Yes; that is for delivery on this side. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. The question I wanted to ask you 
was this: How much would be necessary to erect a plant to extract 
the concentrated salt so as to avoid the heavy freight in shipment? 
Now, we get muriate of potash from Germany. In your opinion, 
what would be necessary to conduct along with that the concentra- 
tion of the salt so as to ship it in concentrated form. 

Mr. Brown. That is exactly what we proposed to do, to ship the 
salt. That figure of 18 tons refers to the salts. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Not the dried, ground kelp? 

Mr. Brown. No; you would get about 60 or 70 tons of the dried, 
ground kelp. 

The Chairman. Do you estimate that the added cost of producing 
it from the bulk form to this concentrated form would be less than 
the freight on the bulk ? 

Mr. Brown. Yes, indeed; very much less. 

Senator Page. Is it not true that in the manufacture of fertilizers 
you need a mixture; for instance, ground rock? 

Mr. Brown. Quite so, but the phosphate will supply that, and the 
potash and nitrogen can go in in comparatively concentrated form. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. If you did not make the separation, if 
you carried the whole across the country you would have to carry 52 
tons of the other stuff to 1 8 tons of the salt ? 

Mr. Brown. Exactly. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. At $6 a ton it would cost you for that 
52 tons $312 to get that stuff around, and it is not worth anything 
like that on the other side ? 

Mr. Brown. It is worth a little for its nitrogen content. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. So it is essential to test out the separa- 
tion to demonstrate its commercial value ? 

Mr. Brown. I think so. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. You have no idea, hnve you, what it 
would cost you to produce this 18 tons per day? 



90 WATER POWER FOB MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

Mr. Brown. Xu. We have no accurate figures, Senator, and we 
are not able to get them. We have struggled to get some accurate 
figures. We sent a man out there to the coast to visit thess plants 
and try to get cost data, but they have been in operation such a short 
time they have not got their processes shaken down. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Have you discussed it with the Secre- 
tary of Agriculture at all? 

Mr. Browx. Yes. sir: we have talked it over. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. How does he feel about a special ap- 
propriation of §150,000 to test this process out? 

Mr. Browx. I can not say. Senator. I ought to say that no esti- 
mate for this was included in the department's estimates. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. What per cent of potash did you 
say a moment ago was in the concentrated form ! 

Mr. Browx. In the dried kelp \ 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. No: I mean when you have 
extracted the potash salt from the kelp. 

Mr. Browx. Then you have chloride of potash, potassium chloride, 
80 per cent pure. That is exactly what we get from Germany. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. I thought in answer to one of 
the queries here you said 20 per cent. 

Mr. Browx. Xo. What I meant to say was this, that the dried 
kelp contained 25 per cent potash. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. But the extracted form contains 
80 per cent i 

Mr. Browx. It is 80 per cent pure. That is right. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. You have charge of the fertilizer 
investigations? 

Mr. Browx. I have charge of the fertilizer investigations, but I 
have specialists under me who handle these various sections of it. 
Mine is an administrative position, and I do not carry the details in 
my head. 

The Chairmax. Is it your judgment, Mr. Brown, that by the use 
of water power, the fixation of nitrogen, and this kelp and other 
resources available here, we can make fertilizer here at a price that 
will enable us to meet reasonable competition from Germany and 
other countries ? 

Mr. Browx. I do not see any reason in the world why we should 
not. 

The Chairman. Of course I am excluding dumping, because that is 
unreasonable competition. 

Mr. Browx. From our investigations there seems to be no reason 
why we should not do it. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. I have no doubt that we will be pro- 
ducing nitrogen at an early period for our fertilizers, but we want to 
get potash atso. 

Mr. Browx. There you run right into the necessity of making 
some arrangement or other with the holders of the patents. The 
existing processes for fixing nitrogen by the electric furnace are all 
patented up to the hilt, and some arrangement would have to be 
made with the holders of those patents. The best chemists in the 
world have been working on that for years, and these processes that 
are in operation are the ones that have been worked out thus far. 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 91 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Do you know anything about the third 
process that is used in Germany that requires very much less power? 

Mr. Brown. There is talk of what they call the Ilaber process, 
I believe, which is the direct combination of hydrogen and nitrogen 
to form ammonia. The details of that process I do not know. 

The Chairman. Do you know anybody that could enlighten us on 
that subject? 

Mr. Brown. 1 instructed one of my men to find out something 
about it the other day if anything was available. He told me at the 
time that he thought some of the details of that process had not 
been patented; they had simply been kept secret. But the general 
idea is well known, and I have hopes that we can work that out in 
time and find out how it is done. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Mi*. Brown, you do not know 
whether or not any officer of the Army would have anything like an 
expert knowledge of this method as applied to explosives ? 

Mr. Brown. I do not know. One of the Army officers testified 
before the Military Affairs Committee of the House on the Mussel 
Shoals proposition and gave some figures about how much it would 
cost to develop 125,000 horsepower. The processes I do not know* 
I have no knowledge whether they have anything on that or not. I 
should think the ordnance officers would. 

Senator Sheppard. Did you tell us about your production of phos- 
phoric acid with nitrogenous products, or will you tell us ? 

Mr. Brown. We are working over at the farm on the idea; I have 
with me the electrochemical expert who has charge of that, Mr. 
Carruthers, if you would like to have a statement from him. He is 
working on the problem of producing phosphoric acid and fixed 
nitrogen in the electric furnace in one operation. We put the phos- 
phate rock in the furnace with coke, and the fumes pass off and are 
absorbed in an absorption tower, forming phosphoric acid direct 
without the use of sulphuric acid at all, as in the ordinary process 
where a certain amount of the rock is treated with sulphuric acid to 
produce phosphoric acid. 

Senator Sheppard. Is phosphoric acid as essential an element in 
fertilizer as potash? 

Mr. Brown. Oh, yes. In an ordinary fertilizer formula, 10-2-2, 
the 10 represents phosphoric acid, 2 is nitrogen, and the other 2 is 
potash. 

Senator Sheppard. Where have we been obtaining our supplies of 
phosphoric acid heretofore ? 

Mr. Brown. There are tremendous beds in the South, in Tennessee,. 
South Carolina, and Florida. 

Senator Sheppard. Are they being developed on a. satisfactory 
scale ? 

Mr. Brown. Oh, yes. We do not import a pound of phosphate 
rock. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. We ship the material for phosphoric 
acid to foreign countries. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. That is the cheapest stuff we 
have, and we have an unlimited supply of that. 

Senator Sheppard. Then why is the United States Government 
working on that ? 

Mr. Brown. This is a combined process. 



92 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

Senator Sheppard. This is to develop a new and inexpensive 
process ? 

Mr. Brown. A new process. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. You are studying the problem of a less 
expensive process, to cheapen the commodity? 

Mr. Brown. Exactly. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. You are attempting to get rid of 
the sulphuric acid process in producing phosphuric acid ? 

Mr. Brown. Yes. That is very important now, because sulphuric 
acid has gone from $5 a ton to $25 a ton. 

Senator Sheppard. I notice this sentence in the report of the Sec- 
retary of Agriculture: 

A phosphoric-acid plant, exclusive of the hydraulic and hydroelectric equipment, 
located in the western fields, to test the possibilities of utilizing the western phosphate 
beds by the use of hydroelectric power would require an appropriation of approxi- 
mately $100,000. For operating expenses for one year, $25,000 would be required, 
with the provision that the products should be disposed of at the market price and 
the proceeds returned to the plant for operating expenses. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. That is the very plant he was 
speaking of. 

Mr. Brown. No; there were two. One was the kelp plant and the 
other was the phosphoric-acid plant that we hope to demonstrate the 
possibility of. 

Senator Sheppard. Is phosphoric acid being produced now by 
water power? 

Mr. Brown. Not to any extent. Phosphoric acid is obtained by 
taking the phosphate rock and treating it with an equal amount of 
sulphuric acid. 

Senator Sheppard. That is an expensive process, is it ? 

Mr. Brown. It is expensive just now because sulphuric acid has 
been so largely taken up by ammunition plants that it has gone from 
$5 a ton to $25 a ton. 

Senator Sheppard. What percentage of nitrogen do you get in this 
electric furnace ? 

Mr. Brown. We have not got any — at least, practically none — 
because we have just started. 

Senator Sheppard. What do you hope to get ? 

Mr. Brown. We hope to get any amount we can. I do not know. 
In the cyanamid process they get 20 per cent, and our process is sim- 
ilar to the cyanamid process. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. The process you are using is one that 
has been patented ? 

Mr. Brown. It is patented. The combined process is not. If we 
can get a combination I think we can get a patent, but still there is a 
basic patent 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Controlled where \ 

Mr. Brown. Controlled by the Cyanamid Co. 

The Chairman. What process is that ? 

Mi*. Brown. The production of the carbide that is involved in the 
cyanamid process. 

The Chairman. How far are these phosphate beds in the West 
from the seaboard? 

Mr. Brown. They run down through Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, 
and Utah, I believe. 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 93 

The Chairman. I was wondering if they were close to the kelp 
beds. 

Mr. Brown. No. They are not very far from the alunite deposits 
where there is a source of potash. 

The Chairman. How tar would you say? 

Mr. Brown. They run into northern Utah, and the alunite deposits 
are in the southern central part of the State. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. These deposits, however, have to be 
transported to the eastern coast by rail, which will be expensive. 
The real problem is to handle the weed on the coast and send it by 
water. 

Mr. Brown. Of course, you reduce your cost if you can do it that 
way. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. And that is the proposition you gentle- 
men have especially on your minds, is it not? 

Mr. Brown. I have it especially on my mind. I believe the kelp 
is really possible as a source of potash, and I believe this country 
ought to be independent of any foreign country for its potash. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. I am rather of the opinion of 
Senator Smith of Georgia that we are going to solve the nitrogen 
problem. Now, if we can solve the potash process, we have already 
solved the phosphoric acid. In my State we can produce it when 
sulphuric acid is cheap, as it was before the war, at from ,$7 to $8 a 
ton. The fact of the matter is that we have demonstrated that where 
you have a lot of vegetable matter in the soil you can take the phos- 
phate rock and put it in the soil, and the chemical action of your 
decomposing plants will produce phosphoric acid in the soil. 

Mr. Brown. There are indications that that is the case. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. What amendment to this bill 
would you suggest to cover that matter of the potash ? 

Mr. Brown. I saw this bill while it was being drafted in Mr. 
Caffey's office, and I raised the question then that it did not take 
care of the potash side of the matter at all, but it was a power-plant 
bill, and there is no power-plant question involved in the potash or 
kelp. Nothing was done about it. It would simply require an addi- 
tional section authorizing the work on the kelp. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. I want to suggest, Mr. Chairman, to the 
Senator from South Carolina that the nitrogen problem is a very 
big problem and a difficult one to put through. This potash prob- 
lem, which only requires an appropriation of $150,000 to let the 
plant be built and tested out by the Agricultural Department, is so 
important that I think we ought to take it by itself and put it right 
through, and send it over to the House. I do not think we need 
wait for the general appropriation bill. I think the situation is 
such as to justify us in passing a special bill authorizing that appro- 
priation. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. It has been indicated before 
this committee that the reason it could not be developed was be- 
cause there could not be obtained proper legislation to give one 
concern sufficient leeway. 

Mr. Brown. I think that is a perfectly fair reason from the man- 
ufacturer's standpoint, too. A man ought to have a right to lease 
a bed or to buy the profit of that bed for a term of years, at least. 
Otherwise he has no guarantee that when he has erected his plant 



94 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

somebody else will not come in within the 3-mile limit and walk off 
with his kelp. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Will the beds continue to furnish a 
supply while they grow up ? 

Mr. Brown. The southern kelp apparently renews itself in about 
three months according to the best figures we can get on it. The 
northern kelp, along the Oregon and Washington coasts, is an annual. 
If cut it returns the following year. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. What is the total amount of potash 
used annually? 

Mr. Brown. From 900,000 to 1,000,000 tons. 

The Chairman. You mean the concentrated form. 

Mr. Brown. Yes. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. That is what I am talking about. 
So, to produce 100,000 tons annually, how large a plant would you 
need? 

Mr. Brown. It would take a pretty good sized plant, Senator. 
This plant that I speak of, producing 18 tons a day, would produce 
5,400 tons a year. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Then it would take about a $2,000,000 
plant to put out 100,000 tons a year? 

Mr. Brown. Offhand, I should say at least that. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. How much area would be required of 
the kelp to produce 100,000 tons a year? 

Mr. Brown. That is hard to say, because the beds are not uni- 
form in growth. Some arc thick and some are thin. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Take the largest beds in southern 
California. 

Mr. Brown. I could not say. I can get the figures, but I can 
not say offhand how much it would take. I do not know how 
much can be harvested per acre. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Have you information in the depart- 
ment that covers this ? 

Mr. Brown. Yes. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. I wish you would let us have that. 

(Information subsequently furnished by Mr. Brown:) 

The investigations of the Bureau of Soils indicate that between 17 
and 18 square miles of kelp beds of average thickness would be re- 
quired to produce 100,000 tons of salts. 

The Chairman. Does not that stuff grow anywhere on the Atlantic 
seaboard or the West Indian Islands? 

Mr. Brown. No; it does not occur anywhere except along the 
Pacific coasts. 

The Chairman. Has there been any effort made to transplant it? 

Mr. Brown. No. That is one thing I have on my mind. I want 
to try that. I want to get the Bureau of Fisheries to bring some 
across on their cars — some of the spores. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Has the experiment been tried of cut- 
ting it to see if continued cutting will destroy it ? 

Mr. Brown. One of the fish-cannery plants on either the Oregon 
or the Washington coast tried their best some years ago, I am told, 
to clear a channel through that kelp and keep it clear, and the stuff 
came up faster than they could keep it cut. 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 95 

Senator Smith of Georgia. So you are not uneasy about that end 
of it? 

Mr. Brown. Not in the least. I think there is no question about 
it renewing itself after being cut. 

Senator Page. I believe there are large manufacturers of fertilizer 
in this country that would not hesitate to put $1,000,000 into your 
plant if they could produce an element of this kind at anywhere the 
the prices suggested^ 

Mr. Brown. As a matter of fact some of those plants are putting 
in pretty heavy investments. The Hercules Powder Co., I think, has 
a half million-dollar project out there. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Where is it located ? 

Mr. Brown. It is down in southern California. All these plants, 
in fact, except one up near Seattle, are down in the southern part of 
California. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Have they tested the question of the 
separation of the salts ? 

Mr. Brown. I think not. So far as my information goes the only 
thing that is being produced now is this dried, ground kelp. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. Can you find out whether any of them 
are endeavoring to solve that? 

Mr. Brown. I have a man out there who is keeping me advised, 
but the Hercules plant is not up yet. They are putting in $500,000, 
but they have not got the plant up. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. It would be vastly better for the depart- 
ment to find a way to do that and make it public to everyone than to 
let one company do it. 

Mr. Brown. I think so. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. What you do is for all the people. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. This potash is an ingredient 
that enters into explosives as well as nitrogen ? 

Mr. Brown. Yes; I am informed that for some explosives potash 
is used. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. I want to have that developed 
here. 

Mr. Brown. In fact, I do not think the Hercules Powder Co. 
would be out there on the coast if it were not needed in explosives. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Mr. Brown, you are familiar 
with the situation. What appropriation would, in your judgment, 
be necessary to try it out on a commercial scale ? Will you just 
draft and send back immediately what you think would be the 
proper form in which to put a measure before the Senate in order to 
cover this very point of testing out the process of manufacturing 
potash from kelp ? 

Mr. Brown. You mean as a special bill or as a section of this bill ? 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Both. 

The Chairman. We can utilize it anyway. I think it ought to be 
presented as a special bill. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Will you send that up not later 
than to-morrow, if you can possibly do so ? 

Mr. Brown. I will try to get it here to-morrow. 

(Thereupon, at 12.10 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned to 
meet at 10.30 o'clock to-morrow morning.) 



WITHDRAWAL OF WATER-POWER SITES AND CONSTRUCTION OF 
WATER-POWER PLANTS FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 



WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 1916. 



United States Senate, 
Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, 

Washington, D. C. 
The committee assembled at 10.30 o'clock, a. m., pursuant to 
adjournment. 

Present: Senators Gore (chairman), Smith of South Carolina, 
Kenyon, and Wadsworth. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina (presiding). We have with us 
this morning two gentlemen from the Navy Department, who will 
testify as to the processes and also the amount of nitrogen material 
needed by the Government. One of the gentlemen is a chemist. 

The main object that the committee had in view in hearing these 
gentlemen was to ascertain as nearly as possible the different processes 
and the one most suited to what we desire here, and also what 

Erocesses were available for use under the patent law. Some question 
as been raised here as to a new process in use in Germany. 
I would like for you, Mr. Patterson, to give to the committee what 
knowledge you have of these different processes, and which one, in 
your opinion, is the proper one, from every standpoint, both as to 
the product turned out and the cheapness of it. 

STATEMENTS OF COMMANDER CHARLES B. McVAY, JR., 
ASSISTANT CHIEF OF ORDNANCE, NAVY DEPARTMENT; 
AND MR. G. W. PATTERSON, CHIEF CHEMIST, PROVING 
GROUND, INDIANHEAD, MD. 

Mr. Patterson. So far as the literature on this subject is con- 
cerned, it is very meager, except in relation to the process used in 
Norway, and that is known as the arc process, and about what the 
Germans are using to-day, we have to guess at a great deal. 

When you speak of a new process in Germany, I think it simply 
is an adaptation of one of the processes which has been offered to us 
by this cyanamid company. 

The arc process requires a cheap water power to produce on an 
economical scale. It can be produced, of course, if you can get 
electricity, whether it costs money or not, but, while you use from 
3 to 5 horsepower for the electric process, the process used by the 
cyanamid company, and I think by the Germans, would only require 
about half a horsepower. If we have got plenty of cheap horsepower, 
33410—16 7 97 



98 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

and can control it properly, and it is within the limits of the output 
which we would need under war conditions, that would be the process 
to adopt; but, it seems to me that the other type is far better for us 
because we can set it up anywhere in the country, make our power 
from coal at any point in the country, place it where we do not have 
long distances in transportation. Shipping nitric acid, if it has to 
be done from the west or east coast, is a very expensive proposition. 
The nitric acid can not be shipped except when it is mixed with 
sulphuric acid, and that increases your freight rate, because sulphuric 
acid is really a dead load. 

So far as the question of cost is concerned, nobody in this country 
knows what the German's cost will actually be. They make esti- 
mates, but they are the roughest kind, for the reason that no nitric 
acid has been made under those processes in this country. We can 
get an approximate, however, on the Norway process— the arc pro- 
cess — when we consider what other things they produce at the same 
time. The arc process produces not only nitric acid, but it produces 
nitrate of lime, and also produces nitrites, which have a great sale in 
the dye trade. Those people make as a principal output fertilizer 
ingredients; that is, your nitrate of lime; the second one the nitrite of 
soda, which is used in dye works and finds a ready sale. The nitric acid 
part of it is a mere by-product with them, because it takes more appa- 
ratus, and if they do not convert it, it is a dead loss, and it is simply 
a by-product, as I consider it. 

You take the other system, by which you convert ammonia into 
nitric acid, and you can get your ammonia in various ways. When 
you spoke of the new process, I think it is simply the conversion of 
some form of ammonia, however obtained, either from gas works 
burning coal, or what you know as the cyanamid process. The cy- 
anamid process is simply a fixation of nitrogen to hydrogen in the 
form of ammonia, and all combined with lime. They take lime and 
charcoal and heat it in an electric furnace. That gives them a cal- 
cium carbide, very similar to the calcium carbide that is used in 
making the ordinary acetylene gas, which is used everywhere now. 
It is, chemically, just a little different; that is, in its physical form; 
and the way in which it reacts. It is a certain type which they have 
to produce. 

Now, having gotten it in that form and heating it in a current of 
nitrogen, it takes up nitrogen to form the cyanamid. It is a calcium- 
nitrogen-hydrogen compound, and ammonium, of course, is nitrogen 
hydrogen. 

Having gotten that compound, they have the material that is used 
in agriculture. If you want to have your material converted to 
agricultural purposes your product is right there; there is no other 
by-product with it. They start from that point to make nitric acid. 
By treating this fertilizer material, calcium cyanamid, with steam, 
ammonia is given off, and they get this gaseous ammonia, and by 
oxidation methods convert it into nitric acid. 

You can get your ammonia in other forms ; you can get it from gas 
works, you can get it in various ways, but it is the same ammonia, 
no matter how you get it, and it is really the starting point for nitric 
acid. If at one time you want to convert your material into fertilizer 
material, you would do that; in war times, if you wanted to convert 
everything into nitric acid or a very large part of your material to 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 99 

nitric acid, you would have it right in that process, but you could 
not do it in the other process, as I believe, in any practical way. I 
think you would have to have it really as a by-product, and have 
other things formed at the same time, which you would have to get 
rid of. 

The question of cost of conversion of ammonia to nitric acid we 
know absolutely nothing about from a practical standpoint. We 
have to take somebody else's say-so. Whatever the Germans 
publish as to their costs is very meager, and it is, a great deal of it, 
guess work, but the cyanamid company, I understand, is putting in a 
plant which they claim will be running at this time an experimental 
unit for converting the ammonia into nitric acid. They never have 
done so up to this time, because they did not believe they could 
compete; that is about the sizs of it. 

Senator Wadsworth. Where is that plant % 

Commander McVay. It is in Canada, just across the line. 

Senator Kenyon. That is the plant which has been referred to. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. That is the one Mr. Washburn 
told us about. 

Senator Kenyon. We know about that, if it is that Canadian 
plant. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. I would like to have you tell 
us, Mr. Patterson, if you know, the availability of these processes 
by this Government. They are under patents, more or less, I sup- 
pose. Have you any knowledge about that ? 

Mr. Patterson. I have absolutely no knowledge of their availa- 
bility. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. What are the sources from 
which the Government now obtains its nitric acid in the manufac- 
ture of its explosives ? 

Mr. Patterson. From imported Chile saltpeter. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. There is no other source that 
you know of ? 

Mr. Patterson. No other source. 

Commander McVay. That is at Niagara Falls on the Canadian 
side. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. We have had testimony as to 
that. It was the opinion of the committee that the Navy Depart- 
ment or the War Department would have exhaustive knowledge 
of the sources and the processes, and I phoned to Secretary Daniels 
to send down whatever experts he had, hoping we would get the 
information, if any such information was available, as to these 
processes of obtaining this nitric acid by this new process, or processes 
known as the arc and cyanamid processes, or this new process 
someone had spoke of as being now used by the Germans. 

Senator Kenyon. Are there not a number of patents on these 
processes ? 

Commander McVay. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Patterson. They are all covered by patents. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Have either of you any knowl- 
edge as to the possibility or practicability of the Government avail- 
ing itself of these processes ? 

Commander McVay. We have had offers to sell processes outright 
and I imagine every branch of the Government interested has had 



100 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

some such offers. We have had an offer of sites and the patent 
rights, either outright or on the royalty basis, but no price has been 
named yet. In my opinion there would be no difficulty in obtaining 
the right to use any process; it is simply a question of how much 
price. 

Senator Wadsworth. Purchased, you mean ? 

Commander McVay. Purchase the right to use it or purchase the 
process outright, more than likely the right to use it on a ro} 7 alty basis. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. The basis of all explosives now 
used is nitric acid, is it not ? 

Commander McVay. Yes, sir. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. With the cutting off of the 
Chilean supply, we would be absolutely without a supply of nitro- 
genous products unless we had some process similar to this, would we 
not? 

Commander McVay. Unless we had a Navy large enough to keep 
control of the sea. 

Senator Kenyon. Just suppose we were in war in a week or so, 
and we were cut off from Chile, what would we do for those products ? 

Commander McVay. At first, of course, we would have to exhaust 
the supply on hand, and then if we were cut off we would have to 
adopt some such process without regard to cost. 

Senator Kenyon. The cyanamid process, for instance ? 

Commander McVay. With the knowledge I have, I should say that 
process; but there is one thing in connection with that, gentlemen, in 
the naval bill this year there is an item which covers a two-year 
supply of sodium nitrate for Indian Head. We expect to purchase 
that and store it. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Has either yourself or Mr. Pat- 
terson knowledge of this process sufficient to warrant you in stating 
whether or not it is past the experimental stage, this extraction of 
nitrogen, and is it practically a commercial fact? 

Commander McVay. The only information I have is from the 
trade journals and particularly the Iron Age, which gives very good 
information on that subject in the issue of February 10, 1916. This 
large company, with an immense amount of capital, is turning out 
cyanamid for fertilizer, and I judge, from the fact it is turning it out, 
it must be a commercial success, that is, at present. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Mr. Patterson, do you know the 
relative cost of atmospheric nitrogen, and the nitrogen obtained from 
the Chilean deposits ? 

Mr. Patterson. Why, I can only give you figures that are given 
us from Norway, when they sell it as a by-product. If you are re- 
selling a by-product you can afford to sell it a good deal cheaper than 
if you were turning it out for that purpose alone, and I do not believe 
they could make it for the amount which they state unless it were 
merely a by-product. I understand it is somewhere in the neighbor- 
hood of one-half what it cost for saltpeter nitric acid, about $50 a 
hundred, and giving somewhere between $90 and $100 a ton for Chile 
saltpeter nitric acid; and that means cheap water power. 

Senator Wadsworth. I was going to ask whether it is not a very 
very difficult thing for us to make any comparison with the Norway 
situation, on account of their remarkably cheap water power? 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 101 

Mr. Patterson. Cheap water power, and knowing how much of the 
main material, and how much profit they make on their principal 
material. As I say, I consider it is sold as a by-product, and you can 
sell a by-product a good deal cheaper if you were otherwise going to 
lose it. 

Senator Wadsworth. Did you say they are not making nitric acid 
in that plant on the Canadian side ? 

Commander McVay. They are not, so far as I know, but they 
expect to. Understand, we have not visited it. It seems to me 
apropos of these two plants that it would be a very easy matter for 
either the committee to go or to detail some one to visit the Canadian 
plant and also this plant in Nitroli, S. C; that, I understand, is an 
arc plant. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. I think that is very small yet. 

Senator Wadsworth. Is that run by water power? 

Commander McVay. Yes. In all the comparisons of cost we based 
our figures on a cost of $3 per horsepower year in Norway, and with 
that horsepower year cost, they can compete and do compete with the 
foreign saltpeter, along with their other products. That is what we 
know. If we can get the power at $3 per horsepower a year, there is 
no reason why we should not compete. 

Senator Wadsworth. The trouble is, Commander, that all the 
testimony we have had that I have heard before this committee is to 
the effect that there is no horsepower in the United States that will be 
lower than $12, and it runs up to $20 and more. 

Commander McVay. $12 per horsepower year, even now — I mean 
with the demand and cost of saltpeter — I think that is rather high, 
under present conditions. There is no question of the cost of nitrate 
of soda; that, as I understand it, is fixed by the Chilean Government. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. They have an export duty. 

Commander McVay. And they sell concessions to mine these beds, 
and then the Government fixes the price of that nitrate of soda. We 
have recently called for bids on nitrate of soda delivered at Indian- 
head, and the lowest bid we got was 3.38 cents a pound, as opposed 
to a previous average of about 2h cents. 

(At this point Senator Gore entered the committee room and took 
the chair.) 

The Chairman. I am sorry to be late, but I had another committee 
to attend. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would like if 
Mr. Patterson has any additional information that no question we 
have asked has indicated, that he just state it to us, now that he 
understands what our object is. 

The Chairman. We would be very glad to have any statement that 
you care to make, Mr. Patterson. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. And to know whether or not in 
his opinion this is a practical system. 

Mr. Patterson. So far as the practicability is concerned, we have 
absolutely no reason to believe that it is not in use on the other side. 
They must be using it; they could not get along without some such 
process in Germany. 

The Chairman. The material point is whether we are on the edge 
of a revolution in the matter of producing this material which would 



102 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

justify delay; if not, the Government ought to go ahead and take 
the risk. 

Mr. Patterson. I believe they have their plants in full operation, 
and have been for over a year producing the nitric acid necessary for 
their munitions, and we will never be able to do it unless it is experi- 
mented with in this country. You have to start something before 
you will be in a position to jump right into it. It is not something 
you can build to-morrow and have immediate success with it. You 
might put up a plant like the one which is in ^Norway, which is defi- 
nitely known, and you can obtain all the necessary data on it, but I 
doubt very much if you can obtain all the data necessary on any of 
the others which might be used in Germany for the conversion of 
ammonia into nitric acid. 

Senator Wadsworth. With the aid of coke ovens ? 

Mr. Patterson. With the aid of coke ovens or any other method 
of producing it from ammonia. 

Commander McVay. Do you not think you could get at that by 
visiting this plant in Nitroli, South Carolina, using the arc process, 
and visiting the cyanamid plant, at Niagara Falls? 

Mr. Patterson. You will find either of those plants are experi- 
mental units, which they have got to work out and demonstrate their 
inefficiencies. 

Commander McVay. The Iron Age says this plant is turning out 
2,000,000 pounds. 

Mr. Patterson. The Norway plant is in practical operation; there 
is no question about that. 

Senator Wadsworth. You say, then, Commander, to in some way 
sum up the situation from the military standpoint, that if we were 
cut off from the Chilean nitrate by war the Kavy Department has 
enough reserve nitrate on hand to carry us over the time in which 
facilities in this country could be developed for the manufacture of 
nitric acid ? 

Commander McVay. Provided we get the amount asked for under 
the present appropriation ? 

Senator Wadsworth. I am assuming that you get this reserve 
contemplated in that appropriation. 

Commander McVay. That will give us a two-years' supply at 
Indianhead. 

Senator Wadsworth. At what rate of consumption ? 

Commander McVay. 15,000,000 pounds a year. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Upon a war basis or a peace 
basis ? 

Commander McVay. That is our peace basis. 

The Chairman. What is your daily capacity ? 

Commander McVay. We expect to turn oui, 6,000,000 pounds of 
powder at Indianhead, starting now. 

Mr. Patterson. Ver} r close to that. 

Senator Kenyon. What is the cost of powder we purchase ? 

Commander McVay. The cost of our manufactured powder is 25 
cents a pound; and then in the figuring on the cost of overhead 
charges, interest charges, pay of officers, indirect overhead of every- 
thing that would be counted in a commercial concern, it costs up 
to-day about 38 cents a pound. 

Mr. Patterson. About 10 cents for overhead? 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 103 

Commander McVay. Thirty-four to thirty-five cents a pound. 

Senator Kenyon. What did you pay for the product before the 
Government built the plant ? 

Commander McVay. Fifty-three cents a pound is what we pay 
to the outside manufacturers, and that price was established by 
Congress, after an investigation into the cost of manufacture. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Before that price was estab- 
lished by Congress, what was it ? 

Commander McVay. I could not answer that. I think about 
80 cents. 

Mr. Patterson. We used to pay for smokeless powder $1, then 
80 cents, 75 cents, and then right straight on down to 60 cents, and 
finally 53 cents. 

Senator Wadsworth. Has there been that reduction in price 
generally throughout the trade ? 

Commander McVay. In powder ? 

Senator Wadsworth. I mean from a dollar down to 50 cents ? 

Commander McVay. The cost was a dollar when we first started, 
and then it has worked down, and we are buying it on down to 60 
cents or 75 cents; but the $1 does not represent what we paid for 
large orders of powder, and at the present time we are not buying 
any powder from outsiders, but are making all of our powder. 
There is one outstanding contract. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. You say taking everything 
into consideration that would be taken in by a commercial plant, 
your cost is around 35 cents a pound ? 

Commander McVay. Yes, sir. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. As compared with the outside 
price fixed by Congress at what price ? 

Commander McVay. Fifty-three cents. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. And at the price preceding the 
fixing of the price from 75 cents to $1. 

Commander McVay. From 75 cents to SI, depending upon the 
development of the new industry, the $1 being at the top. 

Senator Wadsworth. In other words, Commander, you would 
not contend that the establishment of the Government plant had 
brought the price down from $1. 

Commander McVay. Oh, no, not from a dollar to 75 cents. 

Senator Wadsworth. That was indicated so many times by 
Senators on the floor that I thought that ought to be brought out. 
In other words, the industry was in an experimental stage when 
they were charging a dollar ? 

Commander McVay. Yes, sir. 

Senator Wadsworth. And all have been coming down since, as 
the process was perfected, to 53 cents ? 

Commander McVay. Down to 53 cents, which was established as a 
fair price after investigation of the cost, that is, as compared with our 
productive cost. 

Mr. Patterson. Before the combination of the du Pont and the 
International, they had three companies, and the bids that came in 
just before the combination were 69 cents and 70 cents from the two 
different companies, and that did not include the alcohol which we 
furnished. Seventy-five cents was the normal price before they were 



104 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

compelled to reduce it, and the reductions since that time, have all 
been as the result of the Government powder factory. 

Senator Kenyon. Then, you are making this powder at 19 cents a 
pound less than the price the Government has fixed ? 

Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. 

Senator Wadsworth. And you are making 6,000,000 pounds ? 

Commander McVay. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kenyon. Which would be a saving to the Government in 
this one matter of $1,140,000? 

Commander McVay. A year. 

The Chairman. How much do you buy from those private con- 
cerns in a year ? 

Commander McVay. We do not buy any, sir. We make all our 
own powder now. We have one outstanding contract; when that 
is completed, we will not, under ordinary conditions, buy it at all. 

The Chairman. When will that contract expire ? 

Commander McVay. They are starting manufacture now; it will 
expire in a few months. 

The Chairman. Then the Government will make all its own powder 
and divorce itself from the private companies entirely. 

Commander McVay. Yes, sir. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. You are making this powder out 
of the ingredients that the Government itself can not make ? 

Commander McVay. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did it ever occur to you that manufacture of 
powder by the Government might shipwreck private industry, de- 
stroy these gentlemen who started the enterprise, and amount to 
socialism ? 

Commander McVay. No, sir. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. It has been the contention of 
those who have been before us that this process would reduce the 
price of nitrates. Then having the nitrates produced cheaper by the 
Government, the price of powder necessarily would be cheaper. If 
you got your nitrates cheaper out of which you make your explosives, 
you would make your powder cheaper. 

Commander McVay. Yes, sir, Senator, but there is no change in 
the price of nitrates. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. I say, if this process we are now 
trying to provide for were established and you could get your nitrates 
cheaper, then your powder would necessarily be cheaper ? 

Commander McVey. Would be cheaper, unquestionably. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Does it not seem to you that under 
the demonstration of the Government producing its own powder at this 
wonderfully reduced cost, when it has to get its raw material in the 
competitive market or outside its own activities, that if it could pro- 
vide itself with the processes by which it got this material, it would 
affect a like reduction in the cost of the powder? 

Commander McVay. It is a question of management pure and 
simple. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. You seem to have managed this 
powder manufacture pretty well. I do not see why you could not 
manage the other. 

Mr. Patterson, is there anything else that you could suggest along 
the line of inquiry we have been making ? 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 105 

Mr. Patterson. I would simply suggest that I would not be too 
sanguine on this question of cost, to start with. If you can make 
this material and provide a source for nitric acid, that is your concern 
more than to make it cheaply. If you can simply make it at the 
price prevailing in normal times, you can compete, and that is all you 
have to do. It will work itself after that. You will get all sorts of 
people going into it, but the point is that this thing has not been 
started in any way, shape, or fashion. You have to demonstrate it; 
you have to provide the experimental work necessary on all such 
things. 

The Chairman. Like the pioneer in any business ? 

Mr. Patterson. You will remember there was an arc plant a few 
years ago at Niagara Falls. It was somewhat different from the 
Birkeland-Eyde Norway process, but it was a rank failure commer- 
cially; they could not compete. It cost them more, because it took 
more power and did not give the proper yield, not anywhere near the 
yield of the Norway process, although they used the arc system, and 
they made nitric acid directly. It went to the wall. 

The Chairman. In Norway they have immense power. 

Commander McVay. And they claim by the arc process 60 grams 
of nitric acid per kilowatt hour. I happened to remember that, be- 
cause this other concern claims 90 to 110. 

Mr. Patterson. If you should go into the arc system in this 
country and have to pay $12 a horsepower you will just about bring 
your price up to what it would cost to make it from nitrate of soda in 
normal times. 

Senator Wadsworth. Mr. Patterson, I quoted from very rough 
memory the testimony already given here about the cost of horse- 
power in this country. I said from $12 to $20. I do not know 
whether that is an accurate operation of memory on my part or not. 

Mr. Patterson. I looked that question up some time ago. In 
California the Shasta Valley power costs about $16 a kilowatt. A 
kilowatt is reckoned as 1J horsepower, so that is $12. 

Senator Wadsworth. That is probably the most favorable one, is it 
not, now operating? 

Mr. Patterson. Pretty nearly. There are one or two others 
which run from $16 to $i<S; I do not know of any le^s than that. 

Senator Wadsworth. Niagara Falls power is $20 a horsepower, 
as I remember the testimony here. 

Commander McVay. You can get testimony from outside manufac- 
turers who actually manufacture the material that we can not give 
you, because we are not manufacturers under this process. If we 
were manufacturers, we could tell you exactly what it cost. 

The Chairman. Is the Government manufacturing all the nitric 
acid it uses ? 

Commander McVay. Yes, sir. We started the first of this month. 

The Chairman. You depend, then, upon the importation for what 
ingredient ? 

Commander McVay. The nitrate of soda. 

The Chairman. And is the only one ? 

Commander McVay. That is the only one ; yes, sir ; and that is the 
base of nitric acid. 

The Chairman. And this process looks to the production of that 
in this country? 



106 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

Commander McVay. Yes, sir, from the air. 

The Chairman. These processes, of course, are all patented? 

Commander McVay. Yes, sir, but we have stated that I do not 
think we would have any difficulty in getting the right to use the 
patent, because some have already been offered to us. 

The Chairman. Have you had any research made in regard to the 
different patents ? 

Commander McVay. No, sir; we have not gone into the patent 
question at all, except the copies of some patents which concerned the 
production of munitions of war which are furnished to our bureau. 

The Chairman. You mean purely for information and inspection ? 

Commander McVay. Information, and we go over them and look 
at them to see whether it is worth while to go into them. 

The Chairman. Do you care to offer any opinion about the Gov- 
ernment reserving the right to use patented articles or patented 
processes ? 

Commander McVay. The Government now has the right to take 
anything at any time for military necessity. 

Senator Wadsworth. By condemnation. 

The Chairman. The committee will now stand adjourned subject 
to call. 

(Thereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the committee adjourned to meet 
at the call of the chairman.) 



WITHDRAWAL OF WATER-POWER SITES AND CONSTRUCTION OF 
WATER-POWER PLANTS FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 



FRIDAY, MARCH 24, 1916. 



United States Senate, 
Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, 

Washington, D. C. 
The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., pursuant to adjournment, 
Senator John F. Sha froth presiding. 

Present: Senators Shafroth, Smith of South Carolina, Page, 
Gronna, Sheppard, Kenyon, Wadsworth, and Johnson. 

STATEMENT OF DR. I. H. BAEKELAND, MEMBER OF UNITED 
STATES NAVAL CONSULTING BOARD, YONKERS, N. Y. 

Senator Shafroth. I wish you would state your occupation and 
your profession, Dr. Baekelancl. 

Dr. Baekeland. I am a chemist by profession. I graduated from 
the University of Ghent, in Belgium, as a doctor of science. I was 
professor of chemistry and physics at the Government Normal 
School of Bruges, in Belgium. I was associate professor of chem- 
istry at the University of Ghent, and have been in this country for 
27 years. I am an American citizen, since about 20 years. I am the 
only foreign-born member of the United States Naval Consulting 
Board, and was appointed by the American Chemical Society and 
by the American Electro-Chemical Society, two of the societies which 
were invited by Mr. Daniels to send their representatives. 

I am past president of the American Electro-Chemical Society; 
past president of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers; 
past president of the Chemists' Club, etc. 

I will state that I have recently been awarded the Perkins medal 
from the chemists of the United States for industrial chemical 
research, and I have had the Nichols medal, the Willard Gibbs 
medal, and a few other medals that I do not think would interest 
you very much. 

In so far as my business connections are concerned, I retired from 
active business when I was 35 years old, on the proceeds of one of 
my inventions, and since that time I have been a free-lance, except 
for the fact that I happen to be the president and the controlling 
stockholder in one of the companies which manufactures one of my 
recent inventions — a product which is used in electrical manufacture, 
for insulating purposes. I have no other connections. 

Senator Kenyon. I think there is no doubt about the doctor's 
qualifications. 

107 



108 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

Senator Shafroth. You have practically devoted all your life to 
investigation of such subjects as are before this committee. 

Dr. Baekeland. I can say that since I have been an adult I have 
given my exclusive attention to matters of theoretical and applied 
chemistry ; mostly applied chemistry in the later years of my life. 

Senator Kenton. You serve on this naval board without com- 
pensation, and without even expenses, do you not? 

Dr. Baekeland. Not only without compensation, but we agreed 
among ourselves that in so far as we could afford to give our time 
free of charge for the benefit of the country we could also afford to 
expend a few extra hundred dollars to pay our expenses and to pay 
for oar stationery, etc., in order to set an example that there are 
plenty of people in this country willing to do something to pay 
their debts as citizens, without remuneration, receiving therefor the 
satisfaction that perhaps they might be of some use. 

As a member of the naval board — of the Naval Consulting Board — 
I have had plenty of opportunity of late of examining the subject 
of the supply of nitrates for this country. The consulting board is 
enabled to consider this from the standpoint of national prepared- 
ness. This country is in the peculiar condition that, for the purpose 
of war, w T e can furnish practically everything that is needed except 
one thing — nitrates. Now, it so happens that without nitrates, or 
nitric acid — for practically this means the same thing — there is no 
possibility of carrying on any war. 

I can not better emphasize this than by stating that even Germany 
with all her numbers of troops and artillery, with all her 42-centi- 
meter guns and her big army and drilled soldiers, could not continue 
this war if she had no means of making nitric acid from the air. 

In times of peace nitric acid is obtained from Chile saltpeter, which 
is imported from Chile. In the deserts of Chile certain sands con- 
tain Chile saltpeter. These sands are washed out and the resultant 
material is crystalized and separated and sold to the whole world. 
All countries are dependent upon Chile. 

Senator Shafroth. Will you please state what are the constituent 
elements of gunpowder ? 

Dr. Baekeland. Are you referring to. black powder or to smokeless 
powder? 

Senator Shafroth. Either one. 

Dr. Baekeland. Black powder is no longer used for war purposes, 
but probably you refer to smokeless powder ? 

Senator Shafroth. Yes; smokeless powder. 

Dr. Baekeland. Smokeless powder, and in fact all the explosives 
which are used in the present war, are obtained from nitric acid, 
which is made to react on some organic substances. In the case of 
smokeless powder nitric acid is made to react on cotton. Without 
cotton, or celluose, in conjunction with nitric acid, it would be im- 
possible to produce smokeless powder. If you make nitric acid react 
on glycerine you obtain nitroglycerine, which is the base of dynamite ; 
if you make it react on certain products Avhich are contained in coal 
tar, for instance, toluol, it gives you the explosive of which you have 
heard so much and which is called trinitrotoluol or T. N. T. In the 
same way if you react with nitric acid upon carbolic acid, which is 
obtained from coal tar, you get picric acid. Acting with nitric acid 



WATER POWER EOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 109 

on one or another of these or similiar substances you get the ex- 
plosives now used in this new warfare. 

This shows the importance of nitric acid. Right at the beginning of 
the war England saw to it that Germany did not obtain her saltpeter 
from Chile. Of course, Germany had a limited supply of saltpeter, 
but Germany was probably not aware that this war was going to last 
so long. Her supply of saltpeter ran out before long, and so Ger- 
many was confronted with the necessity of making her nitric acid 
by other means. This nitric acid is made by a chemical prccass, 
which, I am glad to say, the chemists of the United States can dupli- 
cate at any time. There is no particular secret about it, and if the 
chemists of the United States were confronted with this problem I 
have no hesitation in saying that, if properly supported and given 
the necessary time, they would make as good a showing for them- 
selves as did the German chemists. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. How much time would it take, 
Doctor? 

Dr. Baekeland. If we had to prepare ourselves to-day it would 
probably take from 8 to 12 months before we begin to feel that we 
were entirely independent for our supply of nitric acid. The Ger- 
mans have been at it for 18 months. At the beginning of the war 
the plants for producing this nitric acid were totally insufficient. Of 
course, Germany had a large supply of ready-made explosives, and 
besides a large supply of Chile saltpeter. From the conversations I 
have had with the heads of our Navy Department, I understand that 
this country has taken the precaution of having a comfortable supply 
of Chile saltpeter at hand, but this supply, of course, can not last 
indefinitely and depends entirely on the extent and the duration of 
any war in which we might be involved. 

The present European war is so different from any wars which have 
occurred heretofore, not only in magnitude of the operations and the 
size of the armies, but the tremendously increased consumption of 
explosives. In two instances, the battles of Neuve Chapelle and Loos, 
in three days more explosives were used than in the whole campaign 
of 1870. That gives you an idea of how in modern war any stores 
of Chile saltpeter would be soon exhausted. 

This country, just like Germany, can manufacture this nitric acid. 
It can be done by using the same processes or processes somewhat 
better adapted to the peculiar conditions in this country, but it will 
take some time — it may take a year, it may take more, to get in shape ; 
and even then our chemical engineers have to do a lot of hustling. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Doctor, right at that juncture, 
is it your opinion that the processes have been sufficiently perfected 
for them to now be put into practical use ? 

Dr. Baekeland. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kenton. You think we have had the last word in these 
processes ? 

Dr. Baekeland. No, sir. We shall never have the last word. 
Chemical processes are improved all the time, and what you started 
three or four months ago, by practice, you will find out how to do 
much better and much more efficiently. That is one of the character- 
istics of the chemical industry, that what is good to-day is no longer 
good enough to-morrow, and with these processes every chemist feels 
that we are only at the beginning of perfection. 



110 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

But the processes used to-day in Germany are entirely practical 
processes. They have not originated entirely in Germany; most of 
those processes are the result of cooperation of men of several nations, 
in fact, it may please you to know that the first practical method for 
making nitric acid from the air was invented and developed right 
here in the United States by two American electro-chemists, Bradley 
and Lovejoy. They started a plant at Niagara Falls as far back as 
1901. They made the nitric acid from the air by producing the com- 
bination of nitrogen and oxygen in the air, under the influence of the 
electric spark. They had a full unit operating at Niagara Falls. 
The matter was described at the time, patents were taken out, and the 
unit was kept in operation for quite a long period, but finally they 
had to give up the problem, because nitric acid could not be made at 
remunerative prices, in view of the too high cost of electric current 
made by water power at Niagara Falls. The electric power at Ni- 
agara Falls cost $18 to $20 per horsepower-year, and that is much too 
high for making nitric acid by such a process profitably. But the 
Norwegians took up the same process, perfected it further, particu- 
larly in view of the fact that Norway could obtain electric current 
produced by water power at the cost of $6 or $7 per horsepower-year 
made it worth while building there a tremendous industry, and since 
that time the Norwegians have been manufacturing from the air a 
large amount of the nitrates which are used in Europe. 

I should mention, however, that the Germans get very little nitrate 
there, for the reason that that company is under the control of French 
capital, and the Frenchmen quite naturally have done their very best 
to withhold the supply from the Germans, but England is being pro- 
vided, aside from what she imports from Chili, with a considerable 
amount of the nitrates made in Norway. 

The process the Germans are using 

Senator Gronna. Doctor, would it disturb you for me to ask you 
a question right there? The Birkeland-Eyde process is, however, an 
inferior process, is it not, to what is known as the cyanamid process? 

Dr. Baekeland. It is rather difficult to say yes or no, in a general 
way. The process is inferior from the standpoint of power required ; 
that is to say, for making one ton of nitric acid with the Norway 
process, which you mention, it requires about five times as much 
power as it requires to make a ton of nitrate acid a year with the 
processes which I was about to describe. In every case where water 
power is scarce or expensive it is undoubtedly inferior. 

Senator Gronna. I meant it is more expensive? 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Doctor, what constitutes the 
difference in cost of water power as between Norway and the United 
States? 

Dr. Baekeland. Well, sir, there are several factors which enter 
into this question. It is always a question, first of all, of demand and 
supply. It so happens that in this country there is a considerable 
demand for water power, and people who have water power try to 
sell it at their own price. Take, for instance, Niagara Falls. On 
the American side you have to pay $18 or $20 per horsepower-year, 
while on the Canadian side you get your horsepower for 10.50. 

Senator Kenyon. Why is that? 

Dr. Baekeland. First of all, the Canadians, when they built that 
power plant, had the advantage of all the practical experience which 






WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. Ill 

had to be gathered in the United States in the construction and in 
the operation of water powers; and, second, the demand in Canada 
is considerably less because the industrial development of that country 
is not in such an advanced stage as it is in the United States. 

Senator Kenyon. Doctor, you said last night in your lecture that 
the water power at Niagara Falls could be used to make fertilizer 
that would make a difference of 3,000,000 bushels of wheat per day 
in this country. That rather startled me. 

Dr. Baekeland. Mr. Tome, the former vice president of the Ameri- 
can Electro-Chemical Society, who is one of the best known electro- 
chemical engineers, a short time ago went to the trouble of calculat- 
ing what the power of .Niagara Falls would mean in increased pro- 
duction of wheat if the power were used entirely for the manufacture 
of nitrates or nitrogen products for fertilizer. Taking the rate of 
increase of the wheat yields by the use of increasing amounts of 
nitrogen fertilizer, as determined by the agricultural experiments in 
Europe and in this country, he came to the remarkable conclusion 
that the full power of Niagara Falls, were it used to transform the 
nitrogen of the air into cheap fertilizers, would mean an increase in 
the wheat crop of this country of 3,000,000 bushels every 24 hours. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. What is your knowledge of the 
cost of fertilizers produced by this process, as compared with the 
means that we have of obtaining fertilizer now ? 

Senator Page. Senator, just one moment, before you pass to that : 
Doctor, will you please explain to us why the power on the Canadian 
side may not be transmitted to the American side ? 

Dr. Baekeland. It is being transmitted to our side. 

Senator Page. You say it is worth $10.50 on the Canadian side and 
$18 to $20 on the American side? Why is that difference, if there is 
no law which prevents the power being transmitted ? 

Dr. Baekeland. On the Canadian side they lease power under spe- 
cial contracts. I am referring to the special lease of power to the 
Cyanamid Co., which obtains its power at the rate of $10.50. 

Senator Page. If they were to make a contract now would not they 
receive a price substantially the same as on the American side? 

Dr. Baekeland. As to the price of the Cyanamid Co., the fact is 
that now you would have to pay a higher price, and I know by 
experience if you were to obtain the same power on the American 
side you have to pay considerably more for the cost of transmission. 

Senator Page. Why does not the law of supply and demand 
govern ? If there was a greater demand to transmit the power across 
the river there, what is the objection to transmitting it and making 
it available for use where it is most valuable ? 

Dr. Baekeland. That is under consideration, but most electro- 
chemical installations require the investment of many millons of 
dollars, and I understand that the present situation of imported cur- 
rent is unusually shaky as far as the steadiness of the transmission 
of the power from the Canadian side is concerned. Nowadays it is 
practically impossible to buy a large amount of power at all in 
Niagara Falls, and I know some people who were inclined to establish 
a factory there operated by imported current until they realized that 
in 24 hours the power from Canada may be shut off and then they 
could not get anything. 



112 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. I would like to ask another 
question right in this connection : Your contention, is, therefore, that 
on account of the great demand for power in this country they can 
get a better price and do get it ? 

Dr. Baekeland. That is right. 

Senator Wadsworth. Mr. Chairman, I might add just a little — not 
in the line of a witness — but just a little information of the matter of 
the Niagara Falls power situation. 

The biggest plants on the Canadian side, according to my informa- 
tion, have been sending a large part of their power across the river 
into the United States and selling it, as the doctor has said ; but, also 
from my information, the Canadian Government in granting those 
companies — which are largely American capital — charters to operate 
on the Canadian side established some hold over them in this respect, 
that if Canadian communities, municipalities in particular, need that 
power the companies operating and manufacturing power on the 
Canadian side must supply them first. 

Senator Page. At a named price? 

Senator Wadsworth. I would not say that; I think so, but I am 
not certain. At any rate, the Canadian communities have very natur- 
ally been growing up in that vicinity ; and the Canadian Government, 
as I understand it, and the governments of those municipalities have 
been calling upon those power companies on the Canadian side for 
more and more of their power. The output of the power is limited by 
a treaty with the United States, and the result is that the manufactur- 
ers on the American side who have been in a large degree dependent on 
power brought across the river on the wire are finding themselves 
confronted with the proposition that they are going to be cut off, 
choked off, slowly but surely ; and that is one of the reasons why the 
development on the United States side of the great industries there — 
and it is an enormous industrial development that has been going on 
there the last 10 or 15 years — has come to a halt. It has come to a 
halt to the extent that at 4 or 5 o'clock in the afternoon a lot of the 
big industries dependent on electric current for running their plants 
have to stop, in order that the cities of Niagara Falls and Lockport 
and Rochester, where the trolleys are run, 70 miles away, and Syra- 
cuse, 150 miles away, where the trolleys are run by this same power — 
in order that those cities may get their lighting, the peak of the load 
being about 5 or 6 or 7 o'clock in the afternoon for municipal pur- 
poses, and when the peak of the load arrives the factories have to 
close. It is really a very serious situation, and we suffer and Canada 
does not. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. I would like to hear you, 
Doctor, on the production of nitrogenous fertilizer from this process, 
as compared with the cost of getting it otherwise now in America. 

Dr. Baekeland. Getting it where? 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. What, in your opinion, would 
be the benefits in this country by using this process to produce ferti- 
lizers as compared with the prices we have to pay now through the 
means of getting our fertilizers now ? 

Dr. Baekeland. As I stated, the problem of supplying this coun- 
try with nitrates or nitric acid, in case of war — if it has to be done 
regardless of cost — is a relatively simple problem. It can be done. 
The fact that the Germans did it shows that it can be done. The 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 113 

question of supplying the country with nitrates or nitrogen ferti- 
lizers for peace purposes is a totally different problem, because it is 
not only a question of making those products, but of making them at 
such a sufficiently low price that the farmer can afford to use them. 

Last evening in my talk on the subject I gave an example with 
which I am familiar, because it relates to the country where I was 
born — Flanders, in Belgium. You have probably heard it stated, 
repeatedly, that the yield per acre in Germany is considerably more 
than the yield per acre in the United States. That is true. Ordi- 
narily people do not know that the yield per acre in Belgium is still 
higher than it is in Germany, and it is very significant that Belgium 
uses more nitrogenous fertilizer than Germany. It is still more 
significant that the yield per acre for most of those crops is almost 
proportionate, within certain limits, to the amount of nitrogen ferti- 
lizer consumed ; in fact, those limits do not seem to have been reached, 
from the fact that fertilizer costs money and naturally there arrives 
a point where it does not pay the farmer to use more fertilizer. As 
soon as you cheapen the cost of fertilizer you give the farmer a 
chance to realize upon the result of his labors by increasing his yields 
per acre. If this matter is important in countries like Belgium and 
Germany, where farm labor is incomparably cheaper than it is in the 
United States, it is almost self-evident that the matter becomes much 
more important in a country like the United States where farm 
labor is scarce and expensive. 

I am told that the reason our farmers do not use more nitrogen 
fertilizers is that they have to pay too high prices for it. The same 
conditions used to exist in Belgium. When I was a young man 
there I remember some people who became very wealthy by selling 
to the poor farmers sand which they had made to smell like guano 
by adding a little guano to it. [Laughter.] Then the farmers 
began to realize that it would be well to analyze their fertilizers, 
and so they got chemists to do this. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. We had the same experience 
in South Carolina. 

Dr. Baekeland. And then after a while the Government organ- 
ized agricultural stations copied from the agricultural stations in 
the United States, which since then have been copied all over 
Europe, and these began to attend to the chemical analysis of fer- 
tilizers. Then the farmers began to realize that the only way for 
obtaining their fertilizers cheaply was to start cooperative societies, 
and then they did away with a lot of middlemen and they were 
getting their nitrogen fertilizer considerably cheaper delivered to 
the consumer than it is obtained in the United States. I am told, 
however, by several of my friends who are acquainted with the 
commercial situation that the freights here in the United States, 
the remixing of fertilizers, and the middlemen constitute extra 
charges, so that finally when the fertilizer gets into the hands of the 
farmer he has to pay considerably more. 

The statement is made by the present Government monopoly in 
Germany that after the war is over and after what they know now 
about the synthetic manufacture of nitrogenous fertilizer from the 
air, after all the experience they have acquired during this war 
while making nitric acid, that they will be in such condition that 
33410—16 8* 



114 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

the}- intend to furnish to the farmers of Germany nitrogen fer- 
tilizer at about one-half the price it is costing the consumer here in 
the United States. If Germany can do that, gentlemen, there is not 
the slightest doubt in my mind that we can do the same here or 
that we can do better. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Doctor, at the present time 
what would you say it would cost to produce a ton of the nitrates 
under the c}^anamid process as compared with the cost of Chilean 
nitrate ? 

Dr. Baekelamd. I had the data before me on the Naval Consulting 
Board, but I do not remember them. But even to-day it might be 
profitable to oxidize ammonia obtained from any source and make 
xiitric acid from it and get it somewhat cheaper than it costs now to 
make nitric acid by starting directly from Chilean saltpeter. This 
is due mainly to the increased price brought about by the extraor- 
dinary war conditions which are existing now. 

Senator Kenton. Doctor, is taking all of this nitrate out of the 
air going to have any effect on the nitrogen required for human 
lite? [Laughter.] 

Dr. Baekeland. It is less than a drop in the ocean. To give you 
some idea of that, a square mile of atmosphere, full depth, con- 
tains enough nitrogen to keep our generation supplied, and there are 
a good many square miles of it. 

This quest or struggle for nitrogen is one of the tragedies of the 
Isuman race. It is staggering to think that here we are with all our 
fcaowledge of all that we can accomplish, knowing what can be ac- 
complished by the aid of science, and that still there should be an 
insufficient production of food. When you begin to imagine that 
4»ur so-called overcrowded population of the world, which, after all, 
#aly amounts to 1,500,000,000 inhabitants, as far as statistics go, 
muld be placed comfortably on that little bit of spot of the earth 
which is called Lake Champlain. If you will make the calculation, 
w.u will find there is standing room for everybody on the frozen 
'surface of Lake Champlain, although some parts of the world are 
^verpopulated and some nations of the earth prefer to fight and try 
to steal other countries in order to have more elbow room. If you 
isftagine, furthermore, that in wintertime, if Lake Champlain were 
frozen over, and if the very old people and the very young people 
were to stand aside, there would be about as much skating space 
lor the population of the earth as there is in New York Central 
Park on the pond on a busy Avinter day. 

The whole situation is a shame to the human race. We know how- 
to get nitrogen from the air; we know how to increase the yields 
<*f our acres. We do not do it, although those chemical processes 
are no longer secrets, and we know all about them. The key to the 
whole situation is better utilization of our natural resources of cheap 
power. If you make your nitrogen compounds or your nitric acid 
at too high prices, you may be able to use it in war time— in war 
time nothing is too expensive when it comes to murdering each 
other. For instance, carbolic acid, which in times of peace can be 
purchased at 7 cents a pound, is frequently considered too expensive 
for surgical purposes or as an antiseptic, but in war times at $1.75 it 
is not too expensive when it comes to converting it into picric acid 
Cor explosives. 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 115 

The question of the fixation of nitrogen from the air from the 
chemical standpoint is clear and easy, and is a problem no more 
difficult than any other chemical problem. But it becomes impos- 
sible from the standpoint of peace production for cheap fertilizers 
unless you can utilize in this country our cheap water power. 

Senator Page. Doctor, will you tell us what you think the maxi- 
mum price will be at which we must discontinue the making of 
nitrosen from the atmosphere? Can we run at $15 a horsepower and 
doit? 

Dr. Baekeland. Some people say that $15 per horsepower would 
be a price at which it could be used, but the price of the fertilizer 
would certainly be higher than what you can get for $10.50 on the 
Canadian side; and $10.50 is considered at the present time too high. 
I am told that the price should not be over $7 or $8. 

Of course, this involves detailed calculations, and commercial con- 
siderations, which are very intricate. Such men as Frank Washburn 
and his assistants and chemists, who have devoted a lot of time to the 
subject, know better than I do how the situation stands in this coun- 
try. What I am giving you is merely a general statement. It can 
be done with a $6 or $7 horsepower, because it is being done in Nor- 
way ; it can be done at $10.50 per horsepower, because it is being done 
on the Canadian side of Niagara Falls. 

Senator Gronna. Can you give the price 01 saltpeter per ton 
or per 100 pounds in Norway? 

Dr. Baekeland. I could not give you those figures. I could fur- 
nish them to the committee ; but I will say that prices of saltpeter 
have gone up tremendously. All the chemical prices nowadays have 
increased in the most absurd way in many cases — ten times, twenty 
times 

Senator Gronna. Pardon me, I mean in times of peace; I did not 
mean, of course, just now. Have you any idea what the cost of pro- 
duction is in normal times? 

Dr. Baekeland. The cost of production? 

Senator Gronna. The cost of the production of the nitrates. 

Dr. Baekeland. No; these matters are carefully guarded secrets, 
and we only know what leaks out. 

Senator Gronna. Do you know what it is being sold for? 

Dr. Baekeland. It is sold in successful competition with the Chile 
saltpeter imported from Chile. Of course, the price of Chilean salt- 
peter is regulated first by the cost of production, the profit thereon, 
and also the export tax. The Government of Chile charges upon 
every ton of saltpeter which leaves the country an export tax, and 
the Chilean Government has been using this tax for building up a 
large strategic railroad line which parallels the coast, and of which 
you have probably heard. 

Senator Page. What is the amount of that export tax, if you know ? 

Dr. Baekeland. I do not know, but I could get you all those details. 

Senator Sheppard. Is not the solution of that the Government 
operation on public lands of manufacturing plants or those products 
so that private profit would be abolished, and then we would get the 
cheapest possible rate? 

Dr. Baekeland. That would be one way of solving the problem 
of our unfortunate situation, but this country up until now does not 



116 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

seem to have grown up to the condition where it can run as profitably 
as a private enterprise such a vast project. 

Senator Ken yon. We are making powder very successfully. 

Senator Sheppard. Very successfully, and we have brought down 
the price of it. 

Dr. Baekeland. Yes, sir; and by and by, after the experts of 
this country have a little more to do with these matters than our 
lawyers — ■ — 

Senator Kenyon. "Politicians," you said last night? 

Dr. Baekeland. Yes ; we may come to a condition where a project 
of this kind can be run as efficiently as the Panama Canal. I am not 
one of those who systematically says that whatever the Government 
does is no good, and whatever private enterprise does is good. We 
have many private enterprises which have been mishandled and 
wrecked. 

Senator Sheppard. If private enterprise handles it, they will 
charge all the traffic will bear; they are in it for the profit; they will 
always exact the highest price. 

Dr. Baekeland. At the same time they will have to hustle to face 
competition and keep on improving. 

Senator Sheppard. But, understand, in this country they are 
smooth enough to a^oid competition and monopolize and charge their 
own price. 

Senator Page. Doctor, please explain to us why it should ever come 
to be a fact that we should be compelled to sell this power or utilize 
this water power for agricultural purposes, when perhaps for the 
purposes of blasting out granite and marble it will demand twice the 
price? Why should not this power be sold where it will bring the 
most ? Why should not the law of supply and demand govern ? 

Dr. Baekeland. It seems natural. 

As I told you, in Germany they are preparing themselves for util- 
izing the acquired experience of the war for the benefit of their eco- 
nomic organization by making themselves still more self-contained 
and more independent from other countries by raising the yield of 
crops on the relatively few acres they have in Germany. 

There are two points of view, however, in this matter, the purely 
commercial standpoint, and then the strategic standpoint in time of 
war. There is also what I would call economic strategy ; it is a mighty 
good thing for a country to make itself totally independent of any 
other country, and I believe if there is any country which can ac- 
complish this it is the United States, on account of its extent and the 
unusual variety of its natural resources. 

Senator Page. I do not want to admit that Vermont is not as good 
an agricultural State as Iowa, but for all that I can not see why if 
the power exist here that it should not be applied to those purposes 
for which it is worth the most. If it is worth more for mining and 
quarrying, let it used for mining and quarrying or manufacturing, 
and I do not know what my friend Kenyon would say about apply- 
ing it. 

Senator Kenyon. My attention for the moment was distracted. 

Senator Page. Why should we assume that the water power of 
this country should not be utilized for the purposes of supplying that 
demand which can afford to pay the most for it? 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 117 

Senator Kenyon. Water power in this country, according to the 
reports of the Secretary of Agriculture, seems to be all in the hands 
of monopolists. 

Senator Gronna. According to the statements of the witnesses 
who appeared before you, there is but very little water power in the 
United States. We had one witness who testified before this com- 
mittee a few days ago who said that there were only two places avail- 
able for water-power sites, that was one at Muscle Shoals and at 
Priest Falls out in the State of Washington. 

Senator Wadsworth. That was for this one purpose of manufac- 
turing cyanamid? 

Senator Gronna. Yes. 

Dr. Baekeland. In answer to the question just raised, why should 
this country not make mainly nitrates for explosives which command 
a higher price, I should like to call attention to the fact that the 
market for explosives is a limited market, while the market for 
fertilizers is practically unlimited, and that is where the question 
of prices comes into play. The market for explosives is only a small 
market as compared with the market for fertilizers. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Doctor, you mentioned a mo- 
ment ago the fact that in times of peace we should prepare ourselves 
strategically as well as otherwise. You mean to say that it would be. 
in your judgment, wise for this country to put itself in a position to 
supply itself with whatever is needed, even though it may not use it, 
for the effect it would have on the supplies from abroad ; you mean to 
say that if we are prepared to produce nitrogen we would be in a 
position that when extortionate prices or unfortunate circumstances 
arose prepare to supply ourselves? 

Dr. Baekeland. I believe, that without going to those extremes, 
the idea can be carried out simply by having at least one plant in 
the United States where we are manufacturing our nitrates, and let 
the future decide how far we are going to extend it afterwards. 

I believe that 10 years from now nitrates will be produced con- 
siderably cheaper than they are to-day. We are just at the begin- 
ning of the art. In fact, it is the history of chemical processes that 
you need to have at least 10 years of experimental and manufactur- 
ing experience and all the incidental knowledge that you can acquire 
while manufacturing and in the meantime the process grows so 
fast in efficiency and in output that its own father would not recog- 
nize it after 10 years. 

Senator Gronna. What is the minimum amount of power that 
can be economically used in the manufacture of nitrates? 

Dr. Baekeland. That is another question, and an important ques- 
tion. These plants have to be run at the utmost efficiency in order 
to be profitable. You can not make a haphazard installation, and 
you can not run a small plant of that kind profitably. And that 
is one of the answers to those who are all the time saying that there 
are so many water powers available for instance in Maine; I know 
some of those water powers. You need a good and substantial in- 
stallation to make it worth while: you must be able to run economi- 
cally in order to make some profit at the end of the year; and I 
should suv that for the manufacture of nitric acid or cvanamid it 



118 WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 

would be rather awkward to try to make a profitable installation on 
a small scale. It would not take less than, say, twenty-five or fifty 
thousand horsepower, and it would be much better if there could 
be available 150,000 horsepower or more. 

In Sweden and Norway they have been able to concentrate their 
plants near large water powers and they have been able to run sev- 
eral hundred thousand horsepower under the same supervision and 
under practically the same units. 

Senator Gronna. How much horsepower would be required for 
using the arc process? I mean, the minimum? 

Dr. Baekeland. Germany now is making nitric acid for muni- 
tions at the staggering rate of almost 300,000 tons a year — almost a 
thousand tons every working day. If that had to be furnished by 
the arc process, or the Norway process, to which you have referred, 
it would require L \ plant of about 900,000 horsepower. 

Senator Gronna. In one plant, you mean? 

Dr. Baekeland. Or several plants. It would require so much 
horsepower, because it requires about 3 horsepower per ton of nitric 
acid per year. If you use the cyanamid method it takes somewhat 
over a half a horsepower per year. So that you can turn out about 
five times as much with the same amount of horsepower. That does 
not mean to say that it is cheaper to use the cyanamid process. 
That depends on too many other conditions which may very in each 
instance. 

Senator Gronna. Supposing we should find it to be too expensive 
to manufacture nitrates from the air. What would you say about 
the possibility of making nitrates from kelp? 

Dr. Baekeland. Potash? 

Senator Gronna, I did not mean nitrates; I meant fertilizer. 

Dr. Baekeland. You are speaking about two different things, as 
if you w T ere speaking about hats and shoes. You need both hats 
and shoes, but you can not use your shoes on your head, and you 
can not put your hat on your feet. When you manufactured ferti- 
lizers you need a certain amount of potash, a certain amount of phos- 
phates, and a certain amount of nitrogen. 

Senator Gronna. I understand that kelp contains about 16 per 
cent of potash and about 2 per cent of nitrogen, does it not? That 
is the chemical analysis? 

Dr. Baekeland. This amount of nitrogen is rather trivial. 

Senator Gronna. It does contain nitrogen, does it not ? 

Dr. Baekeland. Most plants contain some nitrogen. 

Senator Gronna. I simply ask you for information if it would be 
possible to make this product from kelp? 

Dr. Baekeland. Nitrogen fertilizer? 

Senator Gronna. Yes. 

Dr. Baekeland. Oh, if you are willing to pay the price it can be 
done. All these things can be done, but they may cost 3 7 ou fifty times 
as much as any other process. 

Senator Gronna. The reason I asked you that question is this: 
We appropriate every year something for experimentation with the 
manufacture of kelp into potash and into other acids; but you think 
it would be too expensive? 



WATER POWER FOR MANUFACTURE OF NITRATES. 119 

Dr. Baekeland. For nitrogen fertilizer, yes ; but as a potash sup- 
ply the matter has been gone into in a very thorough way by our 
Department of Agriculture, and some splendid work has been done 
in that direction. I have read the reports of that department and, 
from the result of that work, it seems that as a last resort, if you 
are willing to pay the price, we have an abundant source of supply 
of potassium salts here in this country. But the subject of to-day 
refers more particularly to nitrogen fertilizers, which have nothing 
to do with potassium salts except that they are fertilizers. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. From your experience, or 
from your knowledge of the conditions in this country, have we not 
sufficient water power, privately and publicly owned, to produce all 
the nitrogen we need, regardless of the cost ? I am not talking about 
the cost ; but we have sufficient water power throughout the country, 
pretty well distributed? 

Dr. Baekeland. I have not a doubt about that, but unfortunately 
when the Lord made the United States he put some of those water 
powers at places where you would not want them as a gift, when you 
have those water powers way off on the Pacific coast or in Alaska or in 
Oregon and "Washington until that part of our country gets more de- 
veloped. In the meantime, they might just as well be in the moon. A 
short time ago I called attention to the fact that some of those water 
powers which are available there would be less practicable to use 
than the water powers in Iceland, because the transportation to 
available markets by means of cheap bottoms from Iceland is cheaper 
than for the transportation by rail of the manufactured product 
from the extreme Pacific coast to the East, for instance. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Down through the Appalachian 
chain of mountains there are waterfalls sufficient, if properly utilized, 
for this purpose, are there not ? 

Dr. Baekeland. Yes; that is all a question of cost. If you want 
to make nitric acid, regardless of cost, you need no water power what- 
soever. In fact, Germany is getting along without water power. 

Senator Wadsworth. I was going to ask you something about 
that, if you could tell us about how they are harnessing up their coke 
ovens and deriving power sufficient to make nitric acid by that means. 

Dr. Baekeland. Germany began in the same way as we ought to 
do, in case we should be called upon to defend this country. Germany 
began along the lines of least resistance; began by commandeering 
some power plants — municipal power plants and steam power 
plants — and began installing dynamos and erecting new power plants 
deriving their power from steam or internal-combustion engines, and 
began to manufacture electric current in increasing amounts. I might 
mention that if you get coal at about $1.25 a ton, good steam coal, you 
can make your horsepower cheaper than you would have to pay for it 
at Niagara Falls. That gives you some idea how the situation stands. 
The reason manufacturers still prefer to use Niagara power is that 
they say, " Never mind ; the customer will pay for it, anyhow, and we 
are near our best market and we don't have to be bothered with the 
problem of power generation or to go to the trouble of having an 
expensive power installation." 

Germany is producing now, about at the rate of 10,000 tons a year, 
some nitric acid obtained from water powers. I suppose that some 



120 WATEK POWER FOE MANUFACTURE OF NITEATES. 

of the water powers over in Austria and the Austrian Alps are being 
used, but this would be a relatively small amount. The main bulk 
of the production of nitric acid in Germany is obtained by power 
produced by means of steam or gas engines and dynamos in the usual 
way in which such power stations are run here. 

Senator Wadsworth. That is done at a vastly increased cost? 

Dr. Baekeland. I do not know, sir; but from the way they have 
been spending millions and millions I suppose cost plays a very small 
role. Germany has spent over a hundred million dollars in installa- 
tions since the beginning of the war, only for the production of nitric 
acid, availing herself of what existed before and adding extra equip- 
ment. 

Senator Shafroth. It includes both that which is generated by 
steam and that which is generated by water power ? 

Dr. Baekeland. That includes, so far as figures have been com- 
municated to me, the experiments which have been made to make 
Germany independent of Chile, and includes all the plants which 
have been erected since the war started — $100,000,000. 

Senator Wadsworth. Prior to the war did the German Govern- 
ment actively participate in the manufacture of nitric acid and fer- 
tilizer itself? 

Dr. Baekeland. No, sir; as far as I know they have encouraged 
by subsidies and in every way the chemists and engineers who were 
busy with the problem. That is one of the methods of Germany — 
rather an un-American method, the paying of high subsidies to pri- 
vate manufacturers — so as to let them go to the risk of starting new 
processes. The best example has been the manufacture of one of the 
excellent gasoline motors for flying machines which they have in 
Germany. An automobile manufacturer has received over a million 
dollars in subsidies from his Government for preliminary experi- 
mental work in helping to devise a motor which could stand the 
" racket." And a similar method of attacking a problem has been 
followed by the German Government in the development of the 
methods of manufacturing nitric acid from the air. 

(Whereupon, at 12.02 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned, sub- 
ject to the call of the chairman.) 






INDEX. 

Statement of— Pa ^ e - 

Dr. L. H. Baekeland, member of United States Naval Consulting 

Board, Yonkers, N. Y 107 

Mr. Millard F. Bowen, of Buffalo 54 

Mr. R. F. Bower, representing Farmers' National Union and National 

Grange, Campbell, Va 60 

Mr. Frederick W. Brown, in charge of fertilizer investigations, Bu- 
reau of Soils, Department of Agriculture 1 85 

Commander Charles B. McVay, jr., Assistant Chief of Ordnance, 
Navy Department, and Mr. G. W. Patterson, chief chemist, Proving 
Ground, Indianhead, Md 97 

Mr. O. C. Merrill, chief engineer Forestry Service, Department of 
Agriculture 79 

Thomas H. Norton, Ph. D., Sc. D., Bureau of Foreign and Domestic 
Commerce, Washington, D. C 63 

Mr. Frank S. Washburn, president of the American Cyanamid Co. of 
New York City (residence, Nashville, Tenn.) 4 

121 



X 



LBAp'16 



c^ 



\ 



ry 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



022 052 515 6 



'llillJifiwWffliPiflrRfif 



■' • .v. 



W 



09 ^.ftfifflUufifffiffl 



■ i ' •• '''.••'.,,■: : ; - •■, i : '■';'! sCtf >;A.;r i^v'j-iifi'iflHMM 



